Re: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers] from Boris Zbarsky on 2011-06-02 (public-webapps@w3.org from April to June 2011)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:13:50 -0400
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <4DE7EEFE.4040301@mit.edu>

On 6/2/11 3:53 PM, David Levin wrote:
> The mechanism:
>
>     * needs to have an intuitive feel for developers,
>     * must preserve backwards compatibility,
>     * should ideally allow the port to function the same regardless of
>       whether the message was cloned or transferred.

I'm not sure what you mean by that third item...  the obvious meaning, 
which is that clone vs transfer is not black-box observable to the code 
calling postMessage makes no sense.

> There are three ideas for how to accomplish this:

4.  Having separate arguments (in some order) for the ports and the list 
of objects to transfer.

-Boris

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 20:14:18 UTC