W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

RE: Transferable and structured clones, was: Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

From: Feras Moussa <ferasm@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 01:20:12 +0000
To: Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
Message-ID: <1BF800349B6CDF4C82313F8D9EF3239D03E085EB@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:aranganathan@mozilla.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: Kenneth Russell
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; Charles Pritchard; Glenn Maynard; Feras
> Moussa; Adrian Bateman; Greg Billock
> Subject: Re: Transferable and structured clones, was: Re: [FileAPI]
> Deterministic release of Blob proposal
> 
> Ken,
> 
> > I'm not sure that adding close() to Transferable is a good idea. Not
> > all Transferable types may want to support that explicit operation.
> > What about adding close() to Blob, and having the neutering operation
> > on Blob be defined to call close() on it?
> 
> 
> Specifically, you think this is not something ArrayBuffer should inherit?  If it's
> also a bad idea for MessagePort, then those are really our only two use cases
> of Transferable right now.  I'm happy to create something like a close() on
> Blob.
> 
> -- A*
We agree Blobs do not need to be transferrable, and thus it makes sense to have 
close directly on Blob, independent of being transferable.
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 01:20:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT