On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com > <mailto:gbillock@google.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard > <chuck@jumis.com <mailto:chuck@jumis.com>> wrote: > > As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does it > encourage, the passing of MessageChannel. > It's very much made for an RPC style of communication, but if > the message being passed back is a channel, well that's just fine. > > Am I mistaken? What I'm seeing is that we get MessageChannel > for free, and there's no need to specify further. > Individual Intent authors can do that themselves. > > > > Yes. We envision RPC-style request/response as the sweet spot for > intents. We've definitely considered use cases which are better > served by opening a persistent > > On the subject of MessageChannels, my thoughts have been that you > don't pass the data across it, as you would for say "share" "image/*", > but rather it is the initiation of a protocol - whose mime-type is yet > to be determined; something like application/x-protocol-uucp My concern is the plumbing of Transferable. Sending Array Buffers across channels is great for short apps. Here's the webkit meta-bug as they work on postMessage semantics. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64629 It's a "transfer" intent. I'm transferring ownership of a buffer or a stream. It's still appropriate that mime types be specified. Many protocols have them. -Charles
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 18:24:03 UTC