On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 6/2/11 3:53 PM, David Levin wrote: > >> The mechanism: >> >> * needs to have an intuitive feel for developers, >> * must preserve backwards compatibility, >> * should ideally allow the port to function the same regardless of >> whether the message was cloned or transferred. >> > > I'm not sure what you mean by that third item... the obvious meaning, > which is that clone vs transfer is not black-box observable to the code > calling postMessage makes no sense. The receiver of the message is what I meant to say. My edits lost some of the context. dave > There are three ideas for how to accomplish this: >> > > 4. Having separate arguments (in some order) for the ports and the list of > objects to transfer. > > -Boris > >