W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2008

[whatwg] reply() extension to postMessage()

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:14:36 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0803011908310.6407@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > 
> > Over the past few days I've been working on something similar:
> > 
> >    http://hixie.ch/specs/dom/messages/0.9
> 
> So this draft makes one of the two endpoints cross scope, i.e. it is 
> created in one window, and are then passed over to the other. This is a 
> major pain security wise. For example, what happens to expando 
> properties set on the object?

I updated the proposal recently (in response to similar feedback from Adam 
or Collin) to say that when you pass an EndPoint through postMessage(), 
what happens is that a clone EndPoint is made for delivery on the other 
side, and the EndPoint you passed becomes invalid.


> I too am strongly in favor of having synchronous message. Asynchronous 
> things are in general harder for developers to understand. And while 
> Synchronous things generally are evil when it comes to network loads, I 
> see no such problems here.

Yeah I think postMessage() would be synchronous. It would have to be async 
when talking across workers, though:

   http://hixie.ch/specs/dom/workers/0.9

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 11:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:40 UTC