| 10:48 | <Ms2ger> | annevk: hey, re: shadowrealms: do I understand correctly that queuing microtasks is fine, and it's just "real" tasks that are an issue |
| 10:48 | <Ms2ger> | ? |
| 16:07 | <smaug> | Ms2ger: what is the context? (I'm just curious because of microtasks) |
| 16:11 | <Ms2ger> | smaug: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-shadowrealm/issues/398 - we got feedback that exposing timers would be useful in shadow realms, but those need more of an event loop than worklets offer, so I'm reviewing the list of APIs to make sure we don't have other similar issues. It seems like they do support microtasks, though |
| 16:13 | <smaug> | Ms2ger: hmm, is shadowrealm now closer to a worklet? |
| 16:13 | <smaug> | or do you mean that using shadowrealms in worklets wouldn't work? |
| 16:13 | <Ms2ger> | The idea is that worklets will be able to use a shadow realm as well |
| 16:13 | <Ms2ger> | Yeah |
| 16:14 | <smaug> | What would be even the use case for shadow realms in worklets? |
| 16:17 | <Ms2ger> | TC39 tends to assume that what it adds to JS is available in all JS scopes - I don't know if anyone has shared use cases for that specific combination, though |
| 16:35 | <smaug> | perhaps not all the features should be exposed in all the shadowrealms? |
| 16:59 | <ljharb> | in particular, any feature that's not exposed everywhere empirically gets vanishingly little adoption |