- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:54:01 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4/11/2012 2:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/11/12 5:47 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> On 4/11/2012 2:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> > Seems like right now passing a typed array to send() requires a bit >>>> of extra >>>> > hoop-jumping to pass the .buffer instead, right? Is that desirable? >>> It may be convenient to add an overload to send() (presumably on both >>> XHR and WebSocket? Any others?) accepting ArrayBufferView. As pointed >> >> It's convenient. >> >> xhr.send(view); // shorthand >> xhr.send(view.buffer.slice(view.byteOffset, >> view.byteOffset+view.byteLength)); // longhand. > > Note that those have different performance characteristics, too; the > latter involves a buffer copy. Are we stuck with a buffer copy (or copy on write) mechanism anyway? What is the spec on changing the buffer after xhr.send? example: xhr.send(bigView.buffer); bigView[0] = 255; bigView[10000000] = 255;
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 21:54:22 UTC