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

Re: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 19:31:09 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikiX00TBCNqCB3FTmV59oxUN_x-+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>
Cc: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote:
>> It feels like this array of objects given to transfer may complicate (and
>> slow down) both the implementation of this as well as the developer's use of
>> it.
>
> Even with thousands of objects, creating an array containing them is
> quick (and only needs to be done once), and the implementation would
> presumably convert it to a set internally for quick lookups.  I doubt
> most use cases will transfer so many separate objects, though.
>
> (And Ian keeps drilling into our head that implementation complexity
> isn't a major concern, though I don't imagine converting a list of
> objects to a hash table is complex.)

It's spec complexity he was talking about--but anyway, making a hash
table or tree from a list doesn't seem complicated; maybe there are
other issues.  I suppose this could also be done with a per-object
flag, eg. arrayBuffer.setCloneTransfer(true), but as it's the
postMessage call being modified I'm not sure flagging it on the object
itself is clearer.

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 23:31:36 GMT

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