- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:05:01 -0800
On Feb 19, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Anne van Kesteren > <annevk at opera.com> wrote: >> Given that most people don't know the difference between the Window >> and >> the global object and the global worker object will already contain a >> bunch of APIs identical to those on the Window object it seems to >> me that >> giving the object and interface a different name doesn't really help. > > I'm not necessarily sold on making the worker context be the global > object. I always thought having the Window object be the global object > was a bit unfortunate, myself. > > What if we had separate objects: > > - the global scope (with all the typical JS globals, and maybe > XMLHttpRequest) > - workerContext (with all the worker stuff, plus cookies, location, > etc) > > Thoughts? If XMLHttpRequest is one of the APIs available on background threads, does that include its XML parsing/serialization features (responseXML and the ability to pass a Document as the post data)? If so, then effectively the whole DOM API has to be available on the background thread, which may increase the implementation complexity a fair bit over having only selected APIs available. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 18:05:01 UTC