[whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback
giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl
Tue Dec 11 07:42:49 PST 2007
Dnia 10-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 21:22 -0600, Dimitri Glazkov pisze:
> Guys, I think the point was that it's not unreasonable to have
> synchronous API. The argument about slow/busy devices is valid, but I
> still think the developer should have the choice of either going with
> a simple query/receive calls in their code as opposed to braving
> complexity of asynchronous API. I fully agree with this point and do
> believe that if it's a low-hanging fruit, it should be included into
> the implementation.
Allowing the script to wait until the transaction completes would be
enough to provide synchronization, wouldn't it? A stubborn programmer
can still do it: make a transaction set an event upon completion and
make the script loop until that event is set. Upon the theory that the
transaction in question is a quickie, it would be quite acceptable,
especially if the script engine fiddled with thread priorities a bit.
If I am right, it is not such a big issue after all.
More information about the whatwg