Feedback and criticism wanted: DOMCrypt API proposal

Bill Frantz frantz at pwpconsult.com
Thu Jun 9 09:33:53 PDT 2011


[Sorry for the delay. I'm at Reed Collage and the internet 
service I've glommed onto doesn't let me contact my SMTP server, 
so I can't send email, only receive it.]

On 6/6/11 at 13:00, brendan at mozilla.com (Brendan Eich) wrote:

>On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:51 AM, David Dahl wrote:
>
>>On 6/6/11 at 11:00,frantz at pwpconsult.com (Bill Frantz) wrote:
>>>On 6/1/11 at 16:01, ddahl at mozilla.com (David Dahl) wrote:
>>
>>>>The property is namespaced in order to provide future capabilities. The current design is
>asynchronous and looks like this:
>>
>>>Is an asynchronous interface the best choice. I thought one of  the great reliability advantages
>of Javascript was its single-thread, synchronous nature.
>>
>>Browsers almost by default will frown on including any synchronous APIs. With Firefox, we just
>don't want any additional main thread I/O happening.
>
>To say more: JS is single-threaded, but that means you can lock 
>up a "main thread" and starve UI. Browsers use multiple threads 
>and processes these days, but the rule still applies. Scripts 
>run to completion and must pass continuations manually by 
>callback functions if they need to run after some indefinite 
>delay, or even after a just-too-long computation or local i/o operation.

Thanks Brendan. That explanation answers my question and, 
assuming the continuations can't run at the same time as the 
"main" program, satisfies my implied objection.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | OAuth -  It's the best that  | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      | the wrong way of doing things| 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | can provide. - Mike Stay     | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032



More information about the es-discuss mailing list