On 01/02/2011, at 11:19, Simon Pieters wrote: > 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
Yes. Please. +1 Cheers, -- Jorge.