<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Adding default implementation for JavaScript watchdog."
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147107#c9">Comment # 9</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Adding default implementation for JavaScript watchdog."
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147107">bug 147107</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mark.lam@apple.com" title="Mark Lam <mark.lam@apple.com>"> <span class="fn">Mark Lam</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=147107#c8">comment #8</a>)
<span class="quote">> Comment on <span class=""><a href="attachment.cgi?id=257262&action=diff" name="attach_257262" title="Patch">attachment 257262</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=257262&action=edit" title="Patch">[details]</a></span>
> Patch
>
> Is there any reason to have two implementations of this feature? Why not
> just one?</span >
Darwin port uses GCD. The default implementation being proposed creates a thread per WatchDog i.e. per VM. I believe the GCD solution is more efficient for Darwin, but is unfortunately not always available for other ports.
The watchdog thread solution could be optimized to use only one thread, but that would effectively be like implementing a form of GCD. If the other ports don't instantiate multiple VMs as a normal pattern of usage, then it may not be worth the effort to work on this optimization (which is why I didn't bring it up in my review).</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>