Ian Hickson wrote:
* Remove the port property from the SharedWorker interface and give it
a postMessage and onmessage just like dedicated workers have.
I really don't like this. With (Dedicated)Worker it makes sense because
both sides bury the underlying message channel and ports and so things
like closing the port, or whether the port is active, are hidden on both
sides. But with SharedWorker, if we only bury it on one side, there is a
lack of symmetry that IMHO is going to lead to all kinds of issues and
confusion. I really don't like that. If people start sending one side's
pipe down another channel, we can end up with a situation where a
SharedWorker object really represents a port that has nothing to do with
the worker anymore.
It's not really that different from what you have today where a
myWorker.port object can send messages to something that isn't a worker
at all.
It also removes the issue where the .port property on a shared worker is
readonly but dead.
/ Jonas
