On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Ryan Heise wrote:
[...] For all of the reasons above, I would like to see something like
threads in Javascript. Yes, threads give rise to race conditions and
deadlocks, but this seems to be in line with Javascript's apparent
philosophy of doing very little static
Drew Wilson wrote:
Rather than trying to shoehorn concurrent functionality into Javascript (where
many implementations don't support multi-threaded access down at the VM level
anyway, so the obstacles to implementation seem fairly large) it seems like a
better option is to use a different
On 7/22/10 3:21 AM, Ryan Heise wrote:
Note also that said engines are removing said support for various
reasons (performance penalties are a large part of it).
Clearly, it has been shown possible to implement threads efficiently in
other languages
The current browser competitive landscape
Web Workers offer reliability and performance benefits on multi-core
CPUs to a certain class of parallelisable tasks that are primarily
concerned with raw computation over data access. It can clearly be seen
that the lower the ratio of data access to raw computation, the more
performance benefits
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ryan Heise r...@ryanheise.com wrote:
For all of the reasons above, I would like to see something like threads
in Javascript. Yes, threads give rise to race conditions and deadlocks,
but this seems to be in line with Javascript's apparent philosophy of
doing
On 7/21/10 4:11 PM, Ryan Heise wrote:
Note that things might have been different had Javascript been a
purely functional language. If this were the case, then there would
be much safer and more efficient alternatives to making whole copies
of data that could be implemented under the hood.
All meesaging through postMessage uses the internal structured cloning
algorithm detailed at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html5-20100304/Overview.html#internal-structured-cloning-algorithm
It's basically a deep copy, but has a few restrictions on the types cloned, and
doesn't copy functions or
Hi,
The IDL for Worker in the Web Workers API specification shows:
void postMessage(in any message, in optional MessagePortArray ports);
I have a question regarding the 'any' type for message.
If a caller of postMessage passes an object to a worker that is not a
string, is it converted to
FYI: as of now, WebKit Workers 'close()' behavior is following the results
of this thread and is compatible with FF (except we don't implement close
event, as mentioned here).
Thanks for clarifications!
Dmitry
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
My understanding was that relying on exceptions for non-exceptional
cases is bad API design. Why would it be ok here?
I think fallback is to be considered an exceptional case. Especially as
time goes on and more browsers implement support for
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:09:49 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Personally my guess it's more likely that they really wanted to.
I have no idea which is more likely. The only use case I'm aware of is
passing an img in, and for that there isn't really a fallback position,
so it doesn't
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:09:49 -0700, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Personally my guess it's more likely that they really wanted to.
I have no idea which is more likely. The only use case I'm aware of is
passing an img in, and for that there isn't
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:09:49 -0700, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Personally my guess it's more likely that they really wanted to.
I have no idea which is more likely. The only use case I'm aware
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, ben turner wrote:
I'm implementing the structured clone algorithm and this part bothers me
a little bit:
- If input is a host object (e.g. a DOM node)
Return the null value.
Seems like this has the potential to confuse web programmers somewhat.
If I were to
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We could throw an exception, but that would make migrating from this
not being supported to this being supported later a lot harder (you'd
have to catch exceptions and then remove the nodes, rather than just
doing null checks in the worker). I
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We could throw an exception, but that would make migrating from this
not being supported to this being supported later a lot harder (you'd
have to catch exceptions and then remove
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I agree that people are less likely to depend on exceptions. The
problem is feature detection so that you can use the new feature
(sending DOM nodes) in new clients without failing
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:51:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Simon Pieters wrote:
The Web Worker's first example of shared workers is quite involved and
not so easy to follow if you haven't dealt with shared workers before.
For someone wanting to experiment with
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
Web Workers says in the SharedWorker constructor algorithm:
Otherwise, if name is the empty string and there exists a
SharedWorkerGlobalScope object whose closing flag is false, and whose
location attribute is exactly equal to scriptURL, then let
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:36:15 +0100, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
step 3.
test.html
pre id=logLog:/pre
script
var worker = new SharedWorker('test.js');
var log = document.getElementById('log');
worker.port.addEventListener('message', function(e) {
log.textContent += '\n' + e.data;
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:58:37 +0100, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
BTW, I think it's valuable to point out in the example that
MessageEvent.target == the port that received the message (so we don't
need
to use a closure as in the example below - just use
The Web Worker's first example of shared workers is quite involved and not
so easy to follow if you haven't dealt with shared workers before. For
someone wanting to experiment with shared workers, it's easier to grasp
how things work by doing something very basic first. It would be useful if
Ian Hickson a écrit :
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, David Bruant wrote:
This is a new proposal taking into account the feedback I recieved to
the [WebWorkers] About the delegation example message.
In the delegation example of the WebWorker spec, we can see this line :
var num_workers = 10;
My
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:05:53 +0100, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
Shouldn't setting onmessage on a Worker object enable the port message
queue?
Currently step 8 of the run a worker algorithm enables the port
message queue for the
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, David Bruant wrote:
This is a new proposal taking into account the feedback I recieved to
the [WebWorkers] About the delegation example message.
In the delegation example of the WebWorker spec, we can see this line :
var num_workers = 10;
My concern is about the
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
Web Workers says
If it failed to parse, then throw a SyntaxError exception and abort all
these steps.
Shouldn't that be SYNTAX_ERR exception?
No, it's trying to emulate eval().
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E
Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
On 11/11/09 10:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
This attribute have the following properties :
- It's only dependant on the hardware, the operating system and the
WebWorker implementation (thus, it is not dynamically computed by the
user agent at each call and two calls in
On 11/12/09 12:49 PM, David Bruant wrote:
= You're perfectly right. I reformulate the definition of running
conditions (appearing in condition 2 and 3) as :
same memory available, same number of process running concurrently, no
other worker running working on the same document.
That doesn't
Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
On 11/12/09 12:49 PM, David Bruant wrote:
= You're perfectly right. I reformulate the definition of running
conditions (appearing in condition 2 and 3) as :
same memory available, same number of process running concurrently, no
other worker running working on the same
On 11/12/09 3:40 PM, David Bruant wrote:
= If you are comparing no other processes running and one other
process which is also completely cpu-bound running, you are not in what
I've called same running conditions. (because the number of concurrent
processes is different).
Yes, but your
Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
On 11/12/09 3:40 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I reformulate this way the conditions 2 and 3:
- In blank conditions (no other processes/thread running on the CPU,
enough memory to allocate the workers), running the same algorithm (an
easy delegation algorithm) has
On 11/12/09 7:24 PM, David Bruant wrote:
= I think it happens very often. While I'm writing this e-mail, no
process is running. About fifty processes are runnable, but not
running. They are passively waiting. My CPU is barely used.
Interesting. I have several browser processes using
Shouldn't setting onmessage on a Worker object enable the port message
queue?
Currently step 8 of the run a worker algorithm enables the port message
queue for the WorkerGlobalObjectScope side, but it is never enabled when
going in the other direction, if I'm reading the spec correctly.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:05:53 +0100, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
Shouldn't setting onmessage on a Worker object enable the port message
queue?
Currently step 8 of the run a worker algorithm enables the port
message queue for the WorkerGlobalObjectScope side, but it is never
Hi,
This is a new proposal taking into account the feedback I recieved to
the [WebWorkers] About the delegation example message.
In the delegation example of the WebWorker spec, we can see this line :
var num_workers = 10;
My concern is about the arbitrarity of the 10.
Regarding the hardware,
On 11/11/09 10:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
This attribute have the following properties :
- It's only dependant on the hardware, the operating system and the
WebWorker implementation (thus, it is not dynamically computed by the
user agent at each call and two calls in the same
Web Workers says
If it failed to parse, then throw a SyntaxError exception and abort all
these steps.
Shouldn't that be SYNTAX_ERR exception?
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Daniel Gredler wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Daniel Gredler wrote:
Second, why not walk the prototype chain? Similar rules regarding
host objects and regular objects could apply to prototypes. You
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Robert O'Callahanrob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Daniel Gredler daniel.gred...@gmail.com
wrote:
I know Anne VK (Opera) and ROC (Mozilla) appear to read this list... any
comments, guys? Should I just file bugs? Any Safari / Chrome /
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Daniel Gredler wrote:
First, why does the structured clone algorithm used by postMessage() [1]
throw an exception if it encounters cycles? It seems to me that the
memory-based logic which is used to
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Daniel Gredler daniel.gred...@gmail.comwrote:
I know Anne VK (Opera) and ROC (Mozilla) appear to read this list... any
comments, guys? Should I just file bugs? Any Safari / Chrome / IE guys out
there with comments?
I've often had the same thought (that
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:47:14 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'd prefer to stick with JSONic object graphs for now. Correctly
cloning more complicated object structures is a fair bit more
complicated, so I'd like to get solid interop on the basic cases
first. Also, the idea is
On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Gredler wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Daniel Gredler wrote:
First, why does the structured clone algorithm used by
postMessage() [1]
throw an exception if it encounters cycles? It seems to
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Daniel Gredler daniel.gred...@gmail.comwrote:
I know Anne VK (Opera) and ROC (Mozilla) appear to read this list... any
comments, guys? Should I just file bugs? Any Safari / Chrome / IE guys out
there with comments?
I know very little about these issues. Jonas
Hi all,
I've been writing some code that uses web workers. It's a very nice addition
to the HTML toolbox (kudos!), but I have some questions:
First, why does the structured clone algorithm used by postMessage() [1]
throw an exception if it encounters cycles? It seems to me that the
memory-based
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
showNotification is no longer part of HTML5.
Fixed.
The SharedWorker IDL block uses code. That should probably be span.
Fixed.
Why is everything a NoInterfaceObject? Doesn't that mean that you can no
longer prototype them?
I've updated all
showNotification is no longer part of HTML5.
The SharedWorker IDL block uses code. That should probably be span.
Why is everything a NoInterfaceObject? Doesn't that mean that you can no
longer prototype them?
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Douglas Mayle wrote:
I was taking a look at the Web Workers Draft (
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/ ), and I couldn't
find any mention of cross domain workers. I've read a bit about
relaxing domain restrictions on documents, but worker's don't
Hello,
I was taking a look at the Web Workers Draft ( http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/
), and I couldn't find any mention of cross domain workers. I've
read a bit about relaxing domain restrictions on documents, but
worker's don't seem to have a document object. I
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Douglas Mayle wrote:
Hello,
I was taking a look at the Web Workers Draft (
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/ ), and I couldn't find
any mention of cross domain workers. I've read a bit about relaxing domain
restrictions on documents,
After sending this, it occurs to me that at the worst, I could have a
separate document to marshal access to a cross domain web worker.
It's an extra hoop to jump through, but at least it would work.
Douglas Mayle
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
On Dec 9, 2008, at 9:42
I'm still digesting the Web Worker proposal, but here is some
feedback. Sorry it is a bit long.
Structural API stuff:
- I still haven't really internalized the need to either have workers
speak directly to anyone other than the person who created them, or
the other use cases that
Aaron Boodman wrote:
I'm still digesting the Web Worker proposal, but here is some
feedback. Sorry it is a bit long.
Structural API stuff:
- I still haven't really internalized the need to either have workers
speak directly to anyone other than the person who created them, or
the other use
Thanks for the quick reply...
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know this is weird wrt GC when combined with MessagePorts, and I
don't have a proposed solution.
I don't think we should say much regarding GC at all. All we should say is
that GC should
54 matches
Mail list logo
