On 2009-11-08 14:06, Kodak wrote: > On 8 Lis, 22:23, Anthony Lieuallen<arant...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/8/2009 1:31 PM, Kodak wrote: >> >>> If Javascript is single-threaded then it is per window. >>> >> Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? I do not believe it >> to be true. >> > I do not have it - I will need to dig it. Are you saying that having > dozens of windows opened all javascript in them is run in single > thread? So any long lasting call, make it a not asynchronious ajax > call would stop all of your pages from loading/interpreting > javascript? I'm not feeling it is. > I'm afraid that's exactly what Anthony is saying, and what I would probably have said if he hadn't. IIUC, that's actually one of the major performance roadblocks for Firefox in the next year or three: Javascript in Firefox (and in nearly every other browser, except of course Chrome) is single-threaded, because multi-threading would break lots of scripts. Namely, all the scripts that assume what is essentially cooperative multi-tasking (like Anthony's suggestion). Electrolysis and other projects may help considerably here, but backward compatibility is a tricky thing. > Well it can be a single thread with some time divisioning between > "windows" but then still I would need a mechanism to sychronize > "windows" somehow so we are comming to the start. > Yes, and I believe Anthony's original suggestion would apply here.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" group. To post to this group, send email to greasemonkey-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greasemonkey-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
