Nothing I'm aware of would cause this to be synchronous. Thanks for pointing it out. It's definitely worth mentioning this fact in the proposal
On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:56 PM, James Craig wrote: > On Sep 3, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Dominic Mazzoni wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> >>> In general, synchronous events are bad from an architectural point of >>> view. They result in large, complex callstacks, which expose crashes >>> and security vulnerabilities. In the long term, they also impose >>> contraints on how tightly coupled different components need to be. If >>> two components need to communicate synchronously, that limits our >>> future ability to modularize the platform and to exploit parallelism. >>> >> >> It'd also be nearly impossible to implement a synchronous API in a >> multi-process browser like Chrome. > > I'm unaware of any reason it would need to be synchronous. > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
