> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:aranganat...@mozilla.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: Kenneth Russell
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; Charles Pritchard; Glenn Maynard; Feras
> Moussa; Adrian Bateman; Greg Billock
> Subject: Re: Transferable and structured clones, was: Re: [FileAPI]
> Deterministic release of Blob proposal
> 
> Ken,
> 
> > I'm not sure that adding close() to Transferable is a good idea. Not
> > all Transferable types may want to support that explicit operation.
> > What about adding close() to Blob, and having the neutering operation
> > on Blob be defined to call close() on it?
> 
> 
> Specifically, you think this is not something ArrayBuffer should inherit?  If 
> it's
> also a bad idea for MessagePort, then those are really our only two use cases
> of Transferable right now.  I'm happy to create something like a close() on
> Blob.
> 
> -- A*
We agree Blobs do not need to be transferrable, and thus it makes sense to have 
close directly on Blob, independent of being transferable.

Reply via email to