Re: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> 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.


The receiver of the message is what I meant to say.

My edits lost some of the context.

dave


>  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
>
>