W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > June 2007

Re: ECMAScript octet representation (was: Re: Bindings spec ready for FPWD?)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:30:50 +1000
To: public-webapi@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070629003050.GB19512@arc.mcc.id.au>

Cameron McCormack:
> > Does sequence<octet> not cover that?  Would you prefer it to be
> > "looser", in that [[Get]]s and [[Put]]s work like an array, but it is
> > not an ECMAScript Array object (so that it can have some more efficient
> > representation underneath)?

liorean:
> I would prefer that. The ES4 built-ins include a ByteArray object that
> sounds promising for this, and as Maciej pointed out to me in a mail
> on an entirely different topic ES4 library functionality can be added
> to ES3 implementations. (Unless it violates ES3 rules in some way, of
> course.) The proposal on the public export ES4 wiki misses some wanted
> functionality, but then again considerable time has passed since last
> export.
> 
> The first prerelease of the reference implementation of ES4 specified
> ByteArray fleshes it out some from the public export proposal. (See
> attachments...)
> 
> Even if you find ByteArray unsuitable for the bindings since ES3
> engines don't have it as built-in, I'd like to see it specified in
> such a way that ES4 engines are allowed to use the native ByteArray
> instead of having either a less performant ES3 Array-based solution or
> a second ByteArray-like DOM host object.

I was thinking that an ES4 language binding would be separate from the
ES3 one being specified here.  I’m confident that the mapping for
sequence<octet> in the ES3 binding can be written so as to allow an
implementation to use a more efficient host object than an Array object.

-- 
Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
	xmpp:heycam@jabber.org  ▪  ICQ 26955922  ▪  MSN cam@mcc.id.au
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 00:31:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT