On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:55 PM, caridy <caridy at gmail.com> wrote:

> inline...
>
> > On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:21 PM, James Burke <jrburke at gmail.com> wrote:
> >...
> > * How does dynamic loading work in a web worker? In general, how does
> > dynamic loading work when there is no DOM.
>
> think about this as nodejs without NPM and core modules, where we can only
> do `require(‘./path/to/something.js’)` and
> `require(‘/full/path/to/something/else.js’)`, and we can evolve from there.
> The web worker is definitely in our radar, we just don’t have a solution
> for it without the loader implementation (same for realms).
>

This seems to imply that module loading would be a blocking, synchronous
call. Such a change would have huge implications, just as the previous
Loader's async dynamic API did in reverse. Either way I hope there will be
some public debate on that issue so we come away believing the best choice
was made.

jjb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141220/f2b130d4/attachment.html>

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:55 PM, caridy <caridy at gmail.com> wrote:

> think about this as nodejs without NPM and core modules, where we can only
> do `require(‘./path/to/something.js’)` and
> `require(‘/full/path/to/something/else.js’)`, and we can evolve from there.
> The web worker is definitely in our radar, we just don’t have a solution
> for it without the loader implementation (same for realms).

This seems to imply that module loading would be a blocking, synchronous
call. Such a change would have huge implications, just as the previous
Loader's async dynamic API did in reverse. Either way I hope there will be
some public debate on that issue so we come away believing the best choice
was made.