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: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 05:31:16 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikCbJR-Kz105--DfMj0PY3GQU4NPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@google.com>, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:33 AM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote:

> Making people use a helper function like that is just making them jump an
>> unnecessary hoop.
>>
>
> It makes them jump through another hoop to potentially misuse the api.
>

No, it's another hoop that *everyone* has to jump through to use the API at
all, so code you write in browser N+1 would also work in browser N where
fewer classes support transfer.

Jumping that hoop is not the misuse; it's a direct requirement of the API.
*Because* everyone would be doing that, the misuse will also be possible.

Also, I haven't seen mention of Transferrable else where in the final
> proposed solution which you used in that code.
>

It's an interface to indicate that an object is transferrable, to allows
feature testing.  http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110617#l-1427

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 09:31:44 GMT

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