From: ad...@google.com [mailto:ad...@google.com] On Behalf Of Adam Klein
> This seems orthogonal to bucketing. The IDB transaction deactivation step > isn't a sort of work that we'd want to bucket (as I argued in my previous > message, treating this IDB work as a task leads down some bad roads) Hmm, it seems pretty related to me. In particular if we say that the IDB microtask bucket always runs after all other microtask buckets, doesn't that achieve the goals? It's essentially a generalization of your (1), by putting them into a larger conceptual framework. More explicitly, it achieves (1) since the last bucket in the microtask list is essentially "nanotasks". But if we later decided something else needed to run after IDB (your "picotasks"), then we could demote IDB to second-to-last bucket without having to overhaul the overall model.
