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: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:30:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4DEF5D6E.1080205@nokia.com>
To: ext Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@google.com>, David Levin <levin@chromium.org>, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
Now that the responses on this thread have slowed, I would appreciate if 
the participants would please summarize where they think we are on this 
issue, e.g. the points of agreement and disagreement, how to move 
forward, etc.

Also, coming back to the question in the subject (and I apologize if my 
premature subject change caused any confusion or problems), since we 
have an open CfC (ends June 9 [1]) to publish a Candidate Recommendation 
of Web Messaging, is the Messaging spec going to need to change to 
address the issues raised in this thread?

-Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0797.html

On Jun/3/2011 8:47 PM, ext Kenneth Russell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Andrew Wilson<atwilson@google.com>  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Glenn Maynard<glenn@zewt.org>  wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Wilson<atwilson@google.com>  wrote:
>>>> significant motivation. The stated motivations for breaking this API
>>>> don't
>>>> seem compelling to me given the existence of backwards-compatible
>>>> alternatives.
>>> This proposal is backwards-compatible.  If the argument is an array,
>>> nothing changes, so postMessage(..., [ports]) is equivalent to
>>> postMessage(..., {ports: [ports]}).  (The array-only approach can be
>>> done compatibly, too; the object version is just an alternative to
>>> that.)  What's backwards-incompatible?
>> Ah, I missed that piece (to be honest, I haven't been following this
>> discussion in every detail - I only chimed in because of Jonas' request for
>> implementation feedback).
>>
>>> For anyone not looking closely at the IDL while reading this, this
>>> means deprecating (for whatever value "deprecate" has on the web) the
>>> ports array in MessageEvent--not the ports parameter to postMessage
>>> (that's a sequence).
>> Does this affect the API for the SharedWorker onconnect message as well?
> Good point; that might inform not deprecating the ports array in
> MessageEvent, but leaving it as is.
>
> -Ken
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 11:31:30 GMT

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