- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 04:09:08 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > 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. > > So why bother with having one side create two endpoints just to have one > made invalid? It intoroduces two more objects (the pair and the second > endpoint) that the caller basically will just throw away. Wouldn't it be > better to have one side instead create just one endpoint (though I would > call it a messagePipe instead) and then make the postMessage > implementation create the other endpoint. Because then you could only pass an endpoint across a pipe once. The idea is to be able to send both ends across pipes many times. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 20:09:08 UTC