- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:11:52 +0200
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:03:58 +0200, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> > wrote: >> It doesn't make sense to change this given that all synthesized event >> dispatching is synchronous. I don't think postMessage() should be >> different. > > It seems a little different to me. PostMesasge events are fired in > another frame that the caller can't even see into. What difference > does it make to the caller whether postMessage is synchronous or not? This does not have to be any different for cross-frame events. The only difference is that cross-frame synthesized events don't work cross-origin. > Furthermore, if we're going to add the ability for the conversation to > go back and forth, to me it gets strange. You need to the asynchronous coding for that case anyway. (Unless both parties know what they're going to say.) > If you call postMessage() on a frame, and it returns the favor, you > receive the reply before your call to postMessage() even returns. To > me, the current shape of the API (and even the name 'post message') > implies that this is an asynchronous system and that postMessage() > returns immediately, queuing a message to be delivered to the other > window. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:11:52 UTC