- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:18:49 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > I've tweaked the text some to make it clear that once the port is not > > entangled, it doesn't continue being protected in this way. > > The new text seems to be this: > > "When a MessagePort object is entangled, user agents must either act as > if the object has a strong reference to its entangledMessagePort object, > or as if the MessagePort object's owner has a strong reference to the > MessagePort object" > > It seems to me this allows the following case: two message ports A and B > are entangled. A is treated as having a strong reference to B, but is > not treated as if its owner has a strong reference to it. However, B is > not treated as having a strong reference to A, but is treated as if its > owner has a strong reference to it. Is that intended? I think this > behavior would be practically implementable and quite useful in many > cases, even though it is asymmetric. But I am not sure if the text > intended to allow it. Oops, I got this backwards. Fixed. I also added a note encouraging authors to use the close() method to save memory. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 20:18:49 UTC