On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com> wrote:
>
> 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)
>
Whew. Yes, copy-on-write sharing with workers is a great idea. IIUC, it
should be a completely transparent, semantics free optimization. Thanks for
clearing that up.
>
> --Oliver
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 16:24:04 UTC