- 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>
> -----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 UTC