W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers

From: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:23:04 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikvkh-ajQa2e_WUCk+wVWX0_krqo+D5YJw99g+ixN8-dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, "gman@google.com" <gman@google.com>, "cmarrin@apple.com" <cmarrin@apple.com>, "glenn@zewt.org" <glenn@zewt.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>>>> Jonas's suggestion of adding another argument to postMessage, and
>>>> Gregg's generalization to declare it as an array of objects to be
>>>> transferred rather than copied, sounds good.
>>> We could change make MessagePort and ArrayBuffer both inherit from a
>>> [NoInterfaceObject] empty interface, and then make the MessagePort[]
>>> argument of the various postMessage() methods instead take an array of
>>> this new interface, and then just have ArrayBuffer and MessagePort both
>>> define how to be cloned in this way.
>>> If people like this approach I can work with Kenneth on getting the
>>> wording right in the various specs.
>> This sounds good to me; in the interest of moving things forward, are
>> there any objections?
> No, this sounded good to the people here at mozilla that I talked with
> about this.

Apologies but I misunderstood something about this proposal and it no
longer seems desirable. I've followed up on the other (forked) thread.

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 17:23:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:19 UTC