- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:35:24 +0000
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18611
Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |jonas@sicking.cc
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> 2012-08-17 23:35:24 UTC ---
Transferability has been added twice before: Ports and "ArrayBuffer-stuff".
In the first occasion it was added because Ports doesn't make sense if they
aren't transferred.
In the second occasion it was added to enable better performance.
Neither of those reasons apply here. We would get no additional performance
benefits from transferring blobs, and we can implement posting Blobs just fine
without transferring them.
It sounds like you are proposing the ability to transfer blobs purely as a
syntax sugar to handle the case of wanting to transfer the blob and then make
sure to not hold it alive any longer than needed?
However, it doesn't seem hugely beneficial from a syntax point of view:
worker.postMessage({data: blob}, [blob]);
vs.
worker.postMessage({data: blob});
blob.close();
Second, I don't think it has been proven that this pattern is common enough
that adding syntax sugar for it is warranted at this time.
Please don't file new bugs on this. If you want to keep discussing this, either
keep commenting in existing bugs (you can even reopen them), or start a thread
on the list.
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 23:35:25 UTC