Re: RFC: Electrolysis manifesto: Chrome never blocks on content

On 4/23/10 10:14 AM, Mike Shaver wrote:

> What does "reply to chrome->content re-entry" mean, then, and why do
> we care if it computes something for which the duration is
> controllable by web content?

I think cjones is incorrect about chrome->content re-entery with RPC 
messages, because we don't allow RPC messages in that direction. However, 
the content->chrome message still has to be RPC (instead of sync) for one 
reason: the return value from such a function may contain an actor handle 
which was just created (during the call). We have to asynchronously deliver 
that constructor message before we deliver the RPC reply, in order for the 
content process to be aware of it.

--BDS