W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 22:35:33 +0000 (UTC)
To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
cc: Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, "Jonas Sicking (jonas@sicking.cc)" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "gman@google.com" <gman@google.com>, "cmarrin@apple.com" <cmarrin@apple.com>, "glenn@zewt.org" <glenn@zewt.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1105312234010.26539@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Kenneth Russell wrote:
> 
> Jonas's suggestion of adding another argument to postMessage, and 
> Gregg's generalization to declare it as an array of objects to be 
> transferred rather than copied, sounds good.

We could change make MessagePort and ArrayBuffer both inherit from a 
[NoInterfaceObject] empty interface, and then make the MessagePort[]
argument of the various postMessage() methods instead take an array of 
this new interface, and then just have ArrayBuffer and MessagePort both 
define how to be cloned in this way.

If people like this approach I can work with Kenneth on getting the 
wording right in the various specs.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 22:35:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT