On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock <gbill...@google.com
<mailto:gbill...@google.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard
<ch...@jumis.com <mailto:ch...@jumis.com>> wrote:
As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does it
encourage, the passing of MessageChannel.
It's very much made for an RPC style of communication, but if
the message being passed back is a channel, well that's just fine.
Am I mistaken? What I'm seeing is that we get MessageChannel
for free, and there's no need to specify further.
Individual Intent authors can do that themselves.
Yes. We envision RPC-style request/response as the sweet spot for
intents. We've definitely considered use cases which are better
served by opening a persistent
On the subject of MessageChannels, my thoughts have been that you
don't pass the data across it, as you would for say "share" "image/*",
but rather it is the initiation of a protocol - whose mime-type is yet
to be determined; something like application/x-protocol-uucp
My concern is the plumbing of Transferable.
Sending Array Buffers across channels is great for short apps.
Here's the webkit meta-bug as they work on postMessage semantics.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64629
It's a "transfer" intent. I'm transferring ownership of a buffer or a
stream.
It's still appropriate that mime types be specified. Many protocols have
them.
-Charles
