On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 18, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Erik Corry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2010/5/18 Kenneth Russell <[email protected]>: >> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Vladimir Vukicevic [email protected] said: >> > Using hypothetical native JavaScript buffer objects would be >> > compatible with our current relatively simple use of TypedArrays. >> > However, we have begun to explore more advanced use cases including >> > sharing TypedArrays among web workers, and between ECMAScript and >> > browser plugins. In these situations, if we were to use native >> > JavaScript buffer objects, we would need to specify additional >> > behavior for the objects. >> >> This looks like a can of worms to me. Shared buffers break with the >> shared-nothing and message-passing paradigms and necessitate >> synchronization primitives. >> > > +1. > > > There has not been any suggestion of concurrent access to the same shared > buffer that i am aware of (otherwise i would have called this out in the > WebGL WG) -- the only thing that has been discussed is interaction with > workers, where we sharing of the underlying data buffer was always couched > in terms of copy-on-write semantics (eg. make the cloning fast by avoiding > cloning if possible) > Whew. Yes, copy-on-write sharing with workers is a great idea. IIUC, it should be a completely transparent, semantics free optimization. Thanks for clearing that up. > > --Oliver > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
