- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:14:36 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > Over the past few days I've been working on something similar: > > > > http://hixie.ch/specs/dom/messages/0.9 > > So this draft makes one of the two endpoints cross scope, i.e. it is > created in one window, and are then passed over to the other. This is a > major pain security wise. For example, what happens to expando > properties set on the object? I updated the proposal recently (in response to similar feedback from Adam or Collin) to say that when you pass an EndPoint through postMessage(), what happens is that a clone EndPoint is made for delivery on the other side, and the EndPoint you passed becomes invalid. > I too am strongly in favor of having synchronous message. Asynchronous > things are in general harder for developers to understand. And while > Synchronous things generally are evil when it comes to network loads, I > see no such problems here. Yeah I think postMessage() would be synchronous. It would have to be async when talking across workers, though: http://hixie.ch/specs/dom/workers/0.9 -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 11:14:36 UTC