On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com> wrote:
> > significant motivation. The stated motivations for breaking this API
> don't
> > seem compelling to me given the existence of backwards-compatible
> > alternatives.
>
> This proposal is backwards-compatible. If the argument is an array,
> nothing changes, so postMessage(..., [ports]) is equivalent to
> postMessage(..., {ports: [ports]}). (The array-only approach can be
> done compatibly, too; the object version is just an alternative to
> that.) What's backwards-incompatible?
>
Ah, I missed that piece (to be honest, I haven't been following this
discussion in every detail - I only chimed in because of Jonas' request for
implementation feedback).
> For anyone not looking closely at the IDL while reading this, this
> means deprecating (for whatever value "deprecate" has on the web) the
> ports array in MessageEvent--not the ports parameter to postMessage
> (that's a sequence).
>
Does this affect the API for the SharedWorker onconnect message as well?
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 23:16:08 UTC