W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Should send() be able to take an ArrayBufferView?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:50:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4F85FCA9.9080103@mit.edu>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
CC: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4/11/12 5:47 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> > Seems like right now passing a typed array to send() requires a bit
>>> of extra
>>> > hoop-jumping to pass the .buffer instead, right? Is that desirable?
>> It may be convenient to add an overload to send() (presumably on both
>> XHR and WebSocket? Any others?) accepting ArrayBufferView. As pointed
>
> It's convenient.
>
> xhr.send(view); // shorthand
> xhr.send(view.buffer.slice(view.byteOffset,
> view.byteOffset+view.byteLength)); // longhand.

Note that those have different performance characteristics, too; the 
latter involves a buffer copy.

> Boris, How do we feature test for support of the shorthand method?

   try {
     XHR.send(view);
   } catch (e) {
     // No support for sending ArrayBufferView; fall back to complicated
     // slow stuff
   }

I assume you're already feature-testing just like that for ArrayBuffer 
support; if you're not, then just doing whatever testing you do for 
ArrayBuffer should work.  ;)

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 21:51:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:51 GMT