Re: Execute Last

I can't speak to the general behaviour of the community, but for me
it's a bit of voodoo.  setTimeout(aFunc, 0) seems to me like a request
to call aFunc immediately.  I don't know what actually happens when a
browser executes it, but if I want the function to be called _later_,
then it feels wrong to make a request for _immediate_ execution.

I guess I'm saying it's personal taste.

Ian

On 3/21/06, Ryan Hicks <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's a quick question about using setTimeout to asynchronize execution,
> since we're on the topic.
>
> Recently, I've seen a lot of examples using 1ms for the time delay, but
> prior to about a year ago, most examples showed 0ms.  Is there a functional
> difference?  Did the community discover something about how the negligible
> delay improved performance over the nonexistent delay?  Or is 1ms just more
> fashionable now and it's entirely a matter of personal choice?
>
> -ryan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Moran Ben-David
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [wdf-dom] Execute Last
>
> Much thanks to you, Ian.  I suppose you transposed my initial question to
> one that asks whether setTimeout results parallel execution or not.  Your
> answer being "not".
>
> Given that, setTimeout is perfect for my case.  That is, it is essentially
> like putting code at the end of the single execution thread.  I reran my
> code and it works using 1ms.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to answer and reformulate my example.  I greatly
> appreciate it!
>
> Moran
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> > Of Ian Petersen
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:48 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [wdf-dom] Execute Last
> >
> > Hi Moran,
> >
> > > Does anyone know of a good way to delay execution of a piece of code
> > without
> > > relying on time (as in setInterval and setTimeout)?
> >
> > Can I ask why you're concerned about relying on time?
> >
> > In my experience, all browsers run Javascript in a single thread,
> > which means you can never have parallel execution, even if you use
> > setTimeout.  So changing your code like this would do the trick:
> >
> > var lastExecutors = []
> > var timeoutID = null
> >
> > function executeLast(o, f) {
> >     lastExecutors.push([o, f])
> >
> >     if(!timeoutID) {
> >         timeoutID = setTimeout(cycleLastExecutors, 1);
> >     }
> > }
> >
> > function cycleLastExecutors() {
> >     timeoutID = null;
> >
> >     var task;
> >
> >     while(lastExecutors.length > 0) {
> >         task = lastExecutors.shift();
> >
> >         task[1].apply(task[0]);
> >     }
> > }
> >
> >
> > With the above code, calling executeLast(foo, foo.last) will schedule
> > a call to foo.last() to be run 1 millisecond after the current thread
> > of execution terminates.  Is one millisecond too long for your
> > application?
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > --
> > Tired of pop-ups, security holes, and spyware?
> > Try Firefox: http://www.getfirefox.com
> >
> >
> > Unsubscribe
> > [email protected]
> >
> > List info
> > http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/list.html
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Unsubscribe
> [email protected]
>
> List info
> http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/list.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unsubscribe
> [email protected]
>
> List info
> http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/list.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Tired of pop-ups, security holes, and spyware?
Try Firefox: http://www.getfirefox.com


Unsubscribe
[email protected]

List info
http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/list.html 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wdf-dom/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/