[+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.

Reply via email to