On May 18, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Erik Corry <erik.corry@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/5/18 Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>: > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > > <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> Vladimir Vukicevic vladimir@mozilla.com said: > > Using hypothetical native JavaScript buffer objects would be > > compatible with our current relatively simple use of TypedArrays. > > However, we have begun to explore more advanced use cases including > > sharing TypedArrays among web workers, and between ECMAScript and > > browser plugins. In these situations, if we were to use native > > JavaScript buffer objects, we would need to specify additional > > behavior for the objects. > > This looks like a can of worms to me. Shared buffers break with the > shared-nothing and message-passing paradigms and necessitate > synchronization primitives. > > +1. There has not been any suggestion of concurrent access to the same shared buffer that i am aware of (otherwise i would have called this out in the WebGL WG) -- the only thing that has been discussed is interaction with workers, where we sharing of the underlying data buffer was always couched in terms of copy-on-write semantics (eg. make the cloning fast by avoiding cloning if possible) --Oliver
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 16:15:00 UTC