- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:24:14 -0800
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Feras Moussa <ferasm@microsoft.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
>> Separately defining blobs to be transferrable feels like an unneeded >> complexity. A caller wishing to >> neuter after sending can explicit call .close() rather than relying on >> more obscure artifacts of having also put the 'blob' in a >> 'transferrable' array. > > > You can always call close() yourself, but Blob.close() should use the > "neuter" mechanism already there, not make up a new one. Blobs aren't transferable, there is no existing mechanism that applies to them. Adding a blob.close() method is independent of making blob's transferable, the former is not prerequisite on the latter.
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 22:24:43 UTC