On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Glenn Maynard <gl...@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Wilson <atwil...@google.com> wrote: > > significant motivation. The stated motivations for breaking this API > don't > > seem compelling to me given the existence of backwards-compatible > > alternatives. > > This proposal is backwards-compatible. If the argument is an array, > nothing changes, so postMessage(..., [ports]) is equivalent to > postMessage(..., {ports: [ports]}). (The array-only approach can be > done compatibly, too; the object version is just an alternative to > that.) What's backwards-incompatible? > Ah, I missed that piece (to be honest, I haven't been following this discussion in every detail - I only chimed in because of Jonas' request for implementation feedback). > For anyone not looking closely at the IDL while reading this, this > means deprecating (for whatever value "deprecate" has on the web) the > ports array in MessageEvent--not the ports parameter to postMessage > (that's a sequence). > Does this affect the API for the SharedWorker onconnect message as well?