Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-12-15 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote: It is currently possible (I think) to send a port through postMessage after the port was started. This makes sending ports across processes (such as to an iframe or worker living in a different process) pretty painful to implement. It also makes

Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-14 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov
Nov 14, 2008, в 8:50 AM, Jonas Sicking написал(а): To fix all this I propose that if a port has been started, we don't allow it to be passed to postMessage. If that is done an exception is thrown. Could you please explain how this scenario is affected by the port being started? Messages

Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-14 Thread Jonas Sicking
Alexey Proskuryakov wrote: Nov 14, 2008, в 8:50 AM, Jonas Sicking написал(а): To fix all this I propose that if a port has been started, we don't allow it to be passed to postMessage. If that is done an exception is thrown. Could you please explain how this scenario is affected by the port

Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-14 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov
Nov 14, 2008, в 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking написал(а): Could you please explain how this scenario is affected by the port being started? Messages are queued in closed ports until those are started, so I think that it applies word to word to closed ports. Where the messages are queued are an

Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-14 Thread Jonas Sicking
Alexey Proskuryakov wrote: Nov 14, 2008, в 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking написал(а): Could you please explain how this scenario is affected by the port being started? Messages are queued in closed ports until those are started, so I think that it applies word to word to closed ports. Where the

Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-14 Thread Aaron Boodman
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm.. this makes a lot of sense for importScripts, but for XHR you probably want the baseURI to be that of the opening page, since it's quite likely that the opening page gave you a URI to open and process. My expectation

Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-14 Thread Michael Nordman
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm.. this makes a lot of sense for importScripts, but for XHR you probably want the baseURI to be that of the opening page, since it's quite

Re: [whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-14 Thread Jonas Sicking
Aaron Boodman wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm.. this makes a lot of sense for importScripts, but for XHR you probably want the baseURI to be that of the opening page, since it's quite likely that the opening page gave you a URI to open and

[whatwg] Sending MessagePorts after they have started

2008-11-13 Thread Jonas Sicking
Hi All, It is currently possible (I think) to send a port through postMessage after the port was started. This makes sending ports across processes (such as to an iframe or worker living in a different process) pretty painful to implement. It also makes it hard to define without causing race