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: ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:35:50 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikjH-g-psYrKCT-88x6xHXDnHhfFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Cc: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@google.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
I agree with Kenneth.

-Ben Turner

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
> I prefer continuing to use an array for several reasons: simpler
> syntax, better type checking at the Web IDL level, and fewer
> ECMAScript-specific semantics.
>
> -Ken
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:29 PM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies
>>> the "ports" argument to postMessage as an array of objects to
>>> transfer, in such a way that we:
>>
>> Array or object? (by object I mean: {transfer: [arrayBuffer1], ports:
>> [port]})
>>
>>>
>>>  - Maintain 100% backward compatibility
>>>  - Enhance the ability to pass MessagePorts, so that the object graph
>>> can refer to them as well
>>>  - Allow more object types to participate in transfer of ownership in the
>>> future
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge there are no active points of
>>> disagreement. I think we are only waiting for general consensus from
>>> all interested parties that this is the desired step to take.
>>>
>>> If it is, I would be happy to draft proposed edits to the associated
>>> specs; there are several, and the edits may be somewhat involved. I'd
>>> also be happy to share the work with Ian or anyone else.
>>>
>>> I don't know the various processes for web specs, but the Web
>>> Messaging spec will definitely need to be updated if we decide to move
>>> in this direction.
>>>
>>> -Ken
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 21:36:38 GMT

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