+1k ^ 256
On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Bruno Jouhier wrote:
> Trying to be constructive (and apologies for the flame on applications).
> Would the following be a reasonable way forwards:
>
> * deprecate nextTick. It is confusing and changing it may create difficulties
> and add to the confusion.
> * introduce a new API (name open) for a callback that will be called before
> any I/O events gets dispatched
> * introduce an onIdle or equivalent callback that will be called when the I/O
> queue is empty.
> * (optionally) introduce a setImmediate that will be interleave with I/O
> events.
>
> Bruno
>
> On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:03:28 AM UTC+2, stagas wrote:
> 2012/6/2 Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me>:
> >
> > However, this program will (maybe) be affected:
> >
> > process.nextTick(function f () {
> > process.nextTick(f)
> > })
> > setTimeout(function () {
> > console.log('bar')
> > }, 100)
> >
> > Also, we can probably figure out a way to make it work such that it
> > runs the first nextTick at the end of the current RTC, but subsequent
> > ones at some point get deferred. As I said earlier in the thread, we
> > haven't investigated it thoroughly.
> >
>
> If we defer subsequent calls then it's the same thing, but without the
> I/O window that causes bugs. I don't care if it's last or first. The
> idea was scary because it was suggested that this would starve the
> event loop and that it was OK to do that. It's black and white
> different, and if you need that kind of behavior, then it's better to
> use a new method for that.
