I prefer continuing to use an array for several reasons: simpler syntax, better type checking at the Web IDL level, and fewer ECMAScript-specific semantics.
-Ken On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:29 PM, David Levin <le...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Kenneth Russell <k...@google.com> wrote: >> >> My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies >> the "ports" argument to postMessage as an array of objects to >> transfer, in such a way that we: > > Array or object? (by object I mean: {transfer: [arrayBuffer1], ports: > [port]}) > >> >> - Maintain 100% backward compatibility >> - Enhance the ability to pass MessagePorts, so that the object graph >> can refer to them as well >> - Allow more object types to participate in transfer of ownership in the >> future >> >> To the best of my knowledge there are no active points of >> disagreement. I think we are only waiting for general consensus from >> all interested parties that this is the desired step to take. >> >> If it is, I would be happy to draft proposed edits to the associated >> specs; there are several, and the edits may be somewhat involved. I'd >> also be happy to share the work with Ian or anyone else. >> >> I don't know the various processes for web specs, but the Web >> Messaging spec will definitely need to be updated if we decide to move >> in this direction. >> >> -Ken >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com> >> wrote: >> > Now that the responses on this thread have slowed, I would appreciate if >> > the >> > participants would please summarize where they think we are on this >> > issue, >> > e.g. the points of agreement and disagreement, how to move forward, etc. >> > >> > Also, coming back to the question in the subject (and I apologize if my >> > premature subject change caused any confusion or problems), since we >> > have an >> > open CfC (ends June 9 [1]) to publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web >> > Messaging, is the Messaging spec going to need to change to address the >> > issues raised in this thread? >> > >> > -Art Barstow >> > >> > [1] >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0797.html >> > >