Re: RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-07 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and they are >> much >> less error prone. JS developers are not C++ developers. Whenever >> possible, it's >> just better to make things more simpler and convenient. >> > > This a

Re: RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-06 Thread Alex Russell
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > > On 12/4/13, 2:43 AM, Ke-Fong Lin wrote: > >> IMHO, we should make sync APIs available in both dedicated and shared >> workers. >> In order of importance: >> >> 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and they are >> m

Re: RE : RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-06 Thread Alex Russell
fOn Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Ke-Fong Lin wrote: > >> 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and they are > much > >> less error prone. JS developers are not C++ developers. Whenever > possible, it's > >> just better to make things more simpler and convenient. > > > >This a

RE : RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-05 Thread Ke-Fong Lin
>> 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and they are much >> less error prone. JS developers are not C++ developers. Whenever possible, >> it's >> just better to make things more simpler and convenient. > >This argument is not particularly helpful. Apart from that, many JS AP

Re: RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-05 Thread pira...@gmail.com
I totally agree, this is the kind of things I said several weeks ago about why we shouldn't promote the development of sync APIs on workers, and stick only with the same async APIs from the main thread. 2013/12/5 Charles Pritchard : > > On 12/4/13, 2:43 AM, Ke-Fong Lin wrote: >> >> IMHO, we should

Re: RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-04 Thread Charles Pritchard
On 12/4/13, 2:43 AM, Ke-Fong Lin wrote: IMHO, we should make sync APIs available in both dedicated and shared workers. In order of importance: 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and they are much less error prone. JS developers are not C++ developers. Whenever possible,

RE : Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-04 Thread Ke-Fong Lin
Hi everyone, The original email from Jonas has been posted a while ago, here are a few comments about it. Sorry for being late. IMHO, we should make sync APIs available in both dedicated and shared workers. In order of importance: 1) Sync APIs are inherently easier to use than async ones, and t

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-03 Thread Hassen
unsubscribe On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:33:51 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote: Hi all, There has been some amount of debate about the virtue of sync IO APIs in workers. Or sync APIs in workers in general. One of the arguments made against sync APIs in workers made in [1] is that even for workers, it i

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-11-24 Thread David Bruant
Le 24/11/2013 02:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit : On Nov 23, 2013 2:04 PM, "David Bruant" > wrote: > > Le 22/11/2013 03:33, Jonas Sicking a écrit : >> >> We could enable sync IO APIs in workers while still allowing the >> worker thread to remain responsive to messages from

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-11-23 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Nov 23, 2013 2:04 PM, "David Bruant" wrote: > > Le 22/11/2013 03:33, Jonas Sicking a écrit : >> >> We could enable sync IO APIs in workers while still allowing the >> worker thread to remain responsive to messages from the main thread. >> One solution is the API in [2]. Using that API the main

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-11-23 Thread David Bruant
Le 22/11/2013 03:33, Jonas Sicking a écrit : We could enable sync IO APIs in workers while still allowing the worker thread to remain responsive to messages from the main thread. One solution is the API in [2]. Using that API the main thread can send a error-response to a sync request for IO befo

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-11-22 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > But, we should explore the use cases more thoroughly first, to see if > this > > is really needed. An alternative is to just terminate() the whole worker > > and start a new one.

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-11-22 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > But, we should explore the use cases more thoroughly first, to see if this > is really needed. An alternative is to just terminate() the whole worker > and start a new one. That's not very elegant, but it's very simple and > robust: you don

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-11-22 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > One of the arguments made against sync APIs in workers made in [1] is > that even for workers, it is often important to keep code responsive > in order to react to actions taken by the user. > The only relevant thing I can dig out of [1] ca

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-11-22 Thread Simon Pieters
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:33:51 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote: The only browser shipping SharedWorkers is Chrome (not sure if Opera does too?), Yes, both Presto-based (since Opera 10.60) and Chromium-based. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software