[whatwg] Worker lifecycle
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jun 11 20:18:49 PDT 2009
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > I've tweaked the text some to make it clear that once the port is not
> > entangled, it doesn't continue being protected in this way.
> The new text seems to be this:
> "When a MessagePort object is entangled, user agents must either act as
> if the object has a strong reference to its entangledMessagePort object,
> or as if the MessagePort object's owner has a strong reference to the
> MessagePort object"
> It seems to me this allows the following case: two message ports A and B
> are entangled. A is treated as having a strong reference to B, but is
> not treated as if its owner has a strong reference to it. However, B is
> not treated as having a strong reference to A, but is treated as if its
> owner has a strong reference to it. Is that intended? I think this
> behavior would be practically implementable and quite useful in many
> cases, even though it is asymmetric. But I am not sure if the text
> intended to allow it.
Oops, I got this backwards.
I also added a note encouraging authors to use the close() method to save
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg