- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:46:09 -0700
- To: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
- CC: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>, James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>, WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>
On 3/12/2012 1:39 PM, Paul Kinlan wrote: > So does this mean that .ports will be populated by iterating through > the transferable array and looking to see if it is a MessagePort or > not? > > Sorry if this seems dense, but if we are passing the ports in data > (and transferable array), then we should access it on intent.data and > thus remove any need for .ports Instead of inventing, we're using the structured clone algorithm and the Web Messaging spec as they are written. There was [well-reasoned] push-back on inventing or altering the current structured clone algorithm. Though MessagePort is stable/mature, ArrayBuffer is not. When you have a message port open, you can send more ports through it. Authors would use extras when sending files and/or metadata, they'd use transfer when opening a protocol. -Charles
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 20:46:33 UTC