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

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

From: Jarred Nicholls <jarred@webkit.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:21:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CANufG2MmMKcPBwK0G0rJFd+j4V=0vEvsTvYAH3Uc+16AbRLYWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> > On 4/11/12 5:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> Sending an ArrayBufferView would still have to use "arraybuffer" as
> >> the type of data. I don't think it would be a good idea to try to
> >> instantiate the same subclass of ArrayBufferView on the receiving
> >> side.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what this means...
>
> What I mean is that if somehow a browser were on the receiving end of
> one of these messages, the type of the incoming message should still
> be "arraybuffer".
>
> > For XHR.send(), sending an ArrayBufferView should take the byte array
> that
> > the ArrayBufferView is mapping, and send that.  It's possible to achieve
> the
> > same thing now with some hoop jumping involving a possible buffer copy;
> I'm
> > just saying we should remove the need for that hoop jumping.
>
> Agree that these should be the semantics.
>
> > I haven't looked at WebSocket in enough detail to comment intelligently
> on
> > it.
>
> I haven't really either, but if there were some peer-to-peer support,
> then the receiving peer should still get an ArrayBuffer even if the
> sender sent an ArrayBufferView.
>

Yes, this is the only approach that would make sense to me.  The receiver
is just getting a dump of bytes and can consume them however it sees fit.
 The view makes no difference here.


>
> -Ken
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 01:22:44 GMT

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