OK, this is great and I think it solves the problems of what to throw away and not throwing away too much.
> Implementing this efficiently means > tracking, for each module, "all the stuff that's depending/waiting on > me". But the loader has to do this anyway, right? Yes, this already has to happen to know when we can evaluate the top-level module. Thanks, Jon On 15/07/2016 18:31, Jason Orendorff wrote: > How about this: Linking happens as eagerly as possible whenever a module > arrives off the network. This means that very often we'll be linking one > module at a time. In any case, every link set will be a strongly > connected component of ready-to-link modules in the dependency graph; > and therefore if linking fails, we should discard all the modules that > we were trying to link. > > When a link error or any other error happens, we immediately discard the > failed module and everything that depends on it (potentially many > modules in various states, etc.). Implementing this efficiently means > tracking, for each module, "all the stuff that's depending/waiting on > me". But the loader has to do this anyway, right? > > More complete description of this proposal, in case that's not clear: > https://gist.github.com/jorendorff/fc5bad969137402caa10bb3570b3f202 > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Jon Coppeard <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Another similar approach that also uses the committed state might be to > parse all modules as they become available and discard any uncommitted > dependencies on instantiation error. > > > What I'm proposing doesn't discard in-flight dependencies, but allows > them to finish loading. > > However that still has the disadvantage that too many modules are thrown > away on error. > > > Agreed. > > > I guess what I'd really like is some support for this simultaneous > loading in ES. > > > At the least, I think it makes sense to mark Module Records for modules > that failed to parse or link as permanently bad, and assert as we go > that we are only ever working on good Module Records. It would be a nice > clarification. (I suspect TC39 would accept patches for this, even > though the status quo seems correct in every way -- it's just a matter > of someone doing the work.) > > -j _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
