Re: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers] from Glenn Maynard on 2011-06-22 (public-webapps@w3.org from April to June 2011)

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:48:42 -0400
To: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@google.com>, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimML5qvyqmhExxQuo=4NnomsfGohg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 AM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>
>> What happens if an object is included in the second list that doesn't
>> support transfer?  Ian said that it would throw, but I'm not sure that's
>> best.
>>
>
> If it doesn't throw, doesn't that introduce the backwards compat issue when
> something new is supported that wasn't before?
>

The backwards-compat issue that we've talked about before is when transfer
happens without opting into it explicitly for each object or type.  For
example, transferEverythingPossible([A, B]) would cause this problem: if A
supports transfer when you write the code and B does not, then B gaining
support a year later might break your code.

I can't think of backwards-compat issues with not throwing.  Can you give an
example?

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 05:49:10 UTC