- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 04:49:58 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > 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. > > Passing an endpoint multiple times would create multiple clones anyway > so I don't see the advantage to just passing in a pipe and have a new > other end of the pipe being created every time? But I don't really see > the use case for this anyway? If you really need to have multiple things > sending you events you might as well create multiple pipes all using the > same event handlers. > > The one thing that I agree you couldn't do with my proposal is to pass > both ends of a pipe around. You also couldn't pass one end multiple > times. But again, I'd like to hear what the use case is? > > And even that could be done by proxying messages. The main idea is to allow for capabilities-based messaging without proxying. For example, having a page negotiate a connection between two <iframe> widgets, and then stepping away from them. Or a handle to a worker being passed to a gadget in another domain, and the worker itself later delegating the work to another worker. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 20:49:58 UTC