[whatwg] Combining the DedicatedWorker and SharedWorker interfaces
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Nov 13 20:44:20 PST 2008
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Honestly I'm not really sure why the spec says that you need a list at
> all, other than maybe to talk about GC (which i've many times mentioned
> I think the spec should not need to "define").
I remembered what it was that I was trying to remember the last time we
spoke about this -- the case that the spec is trying to define that I
don't know how to define in any other way is the case where a worker has
no non-GC'ed communication mechanisms with the outside world (e.g. the
Worker object is dropped and GC'ed on the outside, there are no message
handlers set up, and there are no other ports around), but the worker has
a timer set up  to do some work that can have side-effects. Without
defining when GC happens, there would be a detectable way to tell that the
worker went away. We want such workers to keep going until the document
that they were associated with is navigated away.
That's what the text in the spec is doing. (It also defines when a worker
should be suspended, for similar reasons.)
I don't really see how we can do away with this without interop issues.
 or a pending XHR, or a pending database transaction response, or...
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg