Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: option.stupid

Expand Messages
  • Morgaut Alexandre Louis Marc
    I find this option name fun and maybe It could be a right name in NodeJS context. That said, I also think that there might be some valid use of Sync methods
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 2 3:19 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I find this option name fun and maybe It could be a right name in NodeJS context.

      That said, I also think that there might be some valid use of "Sync" methods in JavaScript. I'm thinking about the Web Workers, and the synchronous SSJS platforms.

      I know you may not have much consideration for HTML5 (mainly because security should have been addressed in priority) but still...

      In HTML5, many APIs propose Sync and Async modes:
      - XMLHttpRequest 1 & 2: http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ - http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/
      -> it would not be impacted by this option as is because "Sync" isn't part of property names in the API
      - File API: http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/
      - File System API: http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/
      - File Writer API: http://www.w3.org/TR/file-writer-api/
      - Indexed Database API: http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB
      - Web SQL Database (inactive): http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/

      This didn't make much sense before because it was blocking the User Interface, but now, we have the Web Workers allowing to take advantage of multi-threading (or at least multi processing). It then looks to me that using synchronous APIs in Workers should be perfectly acceptable, even more when we know that the importScript() method available in this context works synchronously.


      Another point is about other Server-Side JavaScript implementations
      Most of them have synchronous APIs and take advantage of multi-threading
      I'm not aware of all the details of all of them, most should not get errors from this option as they don't have "Sync" in their method names. In this case only the option name "stupid" is a bit hard (should our feelings being hurt when we don't choose NodeJS?)
      To end my purpose, I would also mention Wakanda, which runs JS code on server synchronously by default. It support natively some HTML5 and NodeJS APIs to:
      - start event loops like contexts when it make sense,
      - be compatible with some existing libraries,
      - and of course enhance learning curve.
      On this platform, not only most of the JavaScript works synchronously, but it would also get the warning while using the synchronous versions of HTML5 APIs.
      Maybe a warning is ok, because such code could not be reused in any context (main user interface context, or Node.js context), but then, isn't the "stupid" option name a bit too strong?
    • benquarmby
      Doug, I don t have a problem with this option, but I would like to suggest a stricter implementation of it s behavior. Instead of broadly catching the
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 20, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Doug,

        I don't have a problem with this option, but I would like to suggest a stricter implementation of it's behavior.

        Instead of broadly catching the substring "Sync", limit it to catch functions that *end* with "Sync", since all blocking Node methods appear use this convention.

        Matching the end will also stop it catching false positives. For example, the completion event handler for an asynchronous synchronize action, i.e. "onGroupSyncComplete".

        Hope you agree.

        --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "douglascrockford" <douglas@...> wrote:
        >
        > JSLint now warns when properties contain the substring 'Sync'. The use of that substring in Nodejs is to identify methods that can cause blockage. Such methods should never be used.
        >
        > These useful warnings can be suppressed by using the new Tolerate stupidity option.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.