- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 19:31:09 -0400
- To: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>
- Cc: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote: >> It feels like this array of objects given to transfer may complicate (and >> slow down) both the implementation of this as well as the developer's use of >> it. > > Even with thousands of objects, creating an array containing them is > quick (and only needs to be done once), and the implementation would > presumably convert it to a set internally for quick lookups. I doubt > most use cases will transfer so many separate objects, though. > > (And Ian keeps drilling into our head that implementation complexity > isn't a major concern, though I don't imagine converting a list of > objects to a hash table is complex.) It's spec complexity he was talking about--but anyway, making a hash table or tree from a list doesn't seem complicated; maybe there are other issues. I suppose this could also be done with a per-object flag, eg. arrayBuffer.setCloneTransfer(true), but as it's the postMessage call being modified I'm not sure flagging it on the object itself is clearer. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 23:31:36 UTC