On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:47:26 +0100, Kenneth Russell <k...@google.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
The structured clone algorithm currently allows ImageData and Blob
objects to be cloned but doesn't mention ArrayBuffer. Is this
intentional? I assume there are no security issues involved, since one
could copy the bytes of an ArrayBuffer into either a Blob or an
ImageData object in order to clone them.
It's intentional in that I'm waiting for ArrayBuffer to be more stable
before I add it throughout the spec. (Same with CORS and the various
places that might support cross-origin communication, e.g. Web Workers,
Server-Sent Events, <img>+<canvas>, etc.)
There's been some preliminary discussion within the WebGL working
group (where ArrayBuffer / Typed Arrays originated) about using
ArrayBuffer with Web Workers in particular. There is a strong desire
to support handoff of an ArrayBuffer from the main thread to a worker
and vice versa; this would allow efficient producer/consumer queues to
be built without violating ECMAScript's shared-nothing semantics.
All of the parties involved are pretty busy getting WebGL 1.0 out the
door; once that happens, we aim to make one more revision to the Typed
Array spec to support (1) read-only arrays for more efficient XHRs and
(2) handoff of ArrayBuffers. Expect public discussions to start in
about six to eight weeks.
While you're discussing efficient handoff of ArrayBuffer, do you also keep
in mind efficient handoff of other objects (e.g. ImageData) as discussed
in this thread?:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-January/029885.html
cheers
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
