- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:15:14 -0700
- To: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- CC: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>, James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>, WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>
On 3/12/2012 2:00 PM, Greg Billock wrote: > Note: > > Web Messaging: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ > > specifically: http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/#posting-messages > > See also the structured clone algorithm: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/common-dom-interfaces.html > > specifically: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/common-dom-interfaces.html#transferable-objects > > Charles, I'm interpreting those documents as saying that the preferred > usage for ports is now > > postMessage(port, [port]); That's only the case for the ArrayBuffer Transferable. You could do postMessage(null, [port]) when just transferring message channels. A messaging channel is not going to work without transfer. An array buffer can just copy, instead of transferring, as it's just a memory region, not a bi-directional event channel. > Is that also your sense of where the evolution is going? In that > world, we would be supporting the 'ports' field for some time, but > we'd at that point move to also making all transferables available in > the structured clone payload as well. I think that the interface I'm > suggesting is pretty friendly to that evolution. Yes, that's my sense of things. -Charles
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 21:15:41 UTC