On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
Havn't been able to find this in the spec: is there a way to allow
processing messages synchronously during a number-crunching worker
thread?
A typical use case is a CPU-intensive task that needs to be aborted
due to user
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I definitely agree that workers need more features to take advantage
of the fact that they are running on their own event loop. One of
which is the one you are asking for.
We could add something like:
boolean
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I definitely agree that workers need more features to take advantage
of the fact that they are running on their own event loop. One of
which is the one
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
Havn't been able to find this in the spec: is there a way to allow
processing messages synchronously during a number-crunching worker
thread?
Yes, by pausing every once in a while with setTimeout and letting the
event loop
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, by pausing every once in a while with setTimeout and letting the
event loop spin.
Doing anything else would break javascript's appearance of
single-threadedness.
I'm not suggesting that events should run on
Havn't been able to find this in the spec: is there a way to allow
processing messages synchronously during a number-crunching worker
thread?
A typical use case is a CPU-intensive task that needs to be aborted
due to user action. For example, it might take 250ms to run a search
on a local
