Static Module Resolution
russell.leggett at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 06:45:13 PDT 2012
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric at gmail.com>wrote:
> Le 06/07/2012 03:17, Brendan Eich a écrit :
>> Aymeric Vitte wrote:
>>> Then the sync xhr is absurd ?
>> It's a botch that developers avoid , else they jank the user interface.
> Yes, as far as you can or as far as you want to avoid unnecessary
> complication, for example projet  is loading quite a lot of things using
> xhr and scripts (which are loading others), the priority was to load the
> user interface as fast as possible (offline feature, etc), then most of the
> loadings are async but the sync xhr could not be avoided (easy way
> sometimes but as far as I remember not using it could lead to situations
> that looked unresolvable)
> We've been over this. Are you seriously defending it?
> Do we have a survey of the use of sync against async ? I think it would
> show that sync is much more used (wrongly or easy way again, but...).
I completely disagree with this. Most developers without the
knowledge/skill to know why sync is bad are just going to use a library
like jQuery - which uses async. I'm not aware of any major library that
uses sync as a default for their ajax api or uses sync in their own code.
> The possibility to have a sync xhr remains usefull, but I see that I will
> be opposed strong arguments (could not find previous discussions about it).
> If not possible, could we have at least a System.download(url,callback),
> as simple as just loading the url content and not caring about what is
> inside ? So we have an alternative to creating globals or linking to globals
>  : http://www.blimpme.com/mobile/
> Email : avitte at jcore.fr
> Web : www.jcore.fr
> Webble : www.webble.it
> Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com
> BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss