[+Yehuda, +Raf] From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein <ad...@google.com> wrote: >> While I agree that the original microtask intent would suggest we >> change this, and I concur that it seems unlikely to break content, I >> worry about the spec and implementation complexity that would be >> incurred by having to support the notion of "at the end of the current >> microtask". It suggests one >> of: >> >> 1. A new task queue, which runs after microtasks (nanotasks?) 2. The >> ability to put tasks at the start of the microtask queue rather than >> at the end > > I was just thinking to hardcode this into the algorithm that's run at the end > of the microtask. Note that closing the transaction never runs code, which > means that very little implementation complexity is needed. > I definitely agree that both of the above options are pretty unattractive. This recalls Yehuda's proposal for a "bucketed" microtask queue. It seems like this is a very strong argument for it.
