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: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:55:27 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikYyRqHJmUv39cE9jDGO36=-O8KSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
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>
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 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.

This sounds good to me; in the interest of moving things forward, are
there any objections?

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 23:56:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:32 UTC