- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:37:57 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18611 --- Comment #10 from Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> 2012-08-28 00:37:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > I wouldn't call the performance of transferable ArrayBuffers an implementation > detail. Authors will highly care about it. If thats not the case we should > remove the feature entirely. It's the very definition of an implementation detail. Transferable makes certain optimizations possible, but nothing in the spec requires they be used, and I would be fairly surprised if browsers don't often fall back on copying when posting across processes. (Otherwise ArrayBuffers would have to be allocated in shared memory in advance, which would be expensive, depending on the size.) The only thing the spec requires of the API is that neutering happen. > The fact that MessagePorts are entirely different is exactly my point. In that case, I don't know what your point is. MessagePorts simply aren't relevant (which is why I didn't bring them up). -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 00:37:58 UTC