Re: Should send() be able to take an ArrayBufferView?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky <> wrote:
> On 4/11/12 5:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>> Sending an ArrayBufferView would still have to use "arraybuffer" as
>> the type of data. I don't think it would be a good idea to try to
>> instantiate the same subclass of ArrayBufferView on the receiving
>> side.
> I'm not sure what this means...

What I mean is that if somehow a browser were on the receiving end of
one of these messages, the type of the incoming message should still
be "arraybuffer".

> For XHR.send(), sending an ArrayBufferView should take the byte array that
> the ArrayBufferView is mapping, and send that.  It's possible to achieve the
> same thing now with some hoop jumping involving a possible buffer copy; I'm
> just saying we should remove the need for that hoop jumping.

Agree that these should be the semantics.

> I haven't looked at WebSocket in enough detail to comment intelligently on
> it.

I haven't really either, but if there were some peer-to-peer support,
then the receiving peer should still get an ArrayBuffer even if the
sender sent an ArrayBufferView.


Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 21:54:33 UTC