- From: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:02:10 -0700
- To: WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Here's how the API would change for transferables: [Constructor(in string action, in string type, in any data, in optional array transferables) raises DOMException] interface Intent { readonly attribute DOMString action; readonly attribute DOMString type; readonly attribute any data; // ONLY PRESENT WHEN THE INTENT IS DELIVERED readonly attribute array ports; void postResult (any data, optional array transferables); void postFailure (any data); }; On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote: > In the draft spec as it is currently [1], there's no allowance for a > separate parameter to indicate transferables. This was in the hope > that a more "stately" syntax for including transferables in the > structured clone algorithm was adopted, and we could use whatever that > turned out to be. I remarked on the public webapps thread [2] that I > think we should just plan on appending this argument. Here would be > the impact: > > new Intent(action, type, data, transferables_array) > > and in delivery, the Intent object would have a 'ports' field where > passed ports would be recovered. > > For passing transferables in the reverse direction, we'd have > > postResult(data, transferables_array) > > and in the client, this would translate to > > onSuccess(data, ports) > > This has the disadvantages and advantages of parallelism with the > existing transferables uses. > > Any opinions or alternatives to consider? I haven't made the 'extras' > change to the spec yet because this change would be competing for that > same spot. If there's no objection to adding this transferables array > argument, I'll add them both at the same time. > > > [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/web-intents/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/1022.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Mar/0003.html
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 20:02:39 UTC