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: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:25:34 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimRJiePcnR_U2wYF8UjMcQkSpBQ=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, "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 Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
> 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?

No, this sounded good to the people here at mozilla that I talked with
about this.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 15:26:31 UTC

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