Prev: Could this be done in javascript?
Next: Passing primitives by reference, part 2
From: Stefan Weiss on 9 Mar 2010 08:00
On 09/03/10 09:52, Jorge wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:26 am, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> AFAIK, all browser script engines have a single main thread, but
>> recently various implementations of background threads have surfaced
>> (web workers), which effectively makes JS development on these browsers
>> potentially multi-threaded. The main difference to most other
>> multi-threaded platforms is that one thread is privileged (i.e., has
>> full access to the DOM), while the other threads are intended for
>> secondary, background calculation tasks. They communicate via a message
>> passing system instead of sharing access to variables and properties,
>> which more or less bypasses the need for synchronization.
>
> Yep. But -just nitpicking a little bit- you prolly shouldn't really
> call a worker a thread as it shares no context with its parent. It's a
> completely separate process with a completely independent separate JS
> context with which you communicate only via JSON texts -messages-
> passing.

Could be a thread, could be a process; it depends on the implementation.
The WHATWG document calls it a "thread-like operation with
message-passing as the coordination mechanism" and requires a
"completely separate and parallel execution environment (i.e. a separate
thread or process or equivalent construct)."


--
stefan
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Prev: Could this be done in javascript?
Next: Passing primitives by reference, part 2