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: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:13:28 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTin_1YzCE0tHJ_CfCPfGb30tk1kGNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: glenn@zewt.org
Cc: levin@chromium.org, jonas@sicking.cc, ian@hixie.ch, kbr@google.com, art.barstow@nokia.com, dslomov@google.com, bent.mozilla@gmail.com, public-webapps@w3.org, Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

I do understand Glenn's point about convenience, but I generally strongly
prefer APIs that throw exceptions when passed unsupported arguments over
APIs that silently ignore those arguments.
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 15:13:56 GMT

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