On 3/7/12 12:34 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Charles Pritchard<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russell<[email protected]> wrote:
I believe that we should fix the immediate problem and add a close()
method to Blob. I'm not in favor of adding a similar method to
ArrayBuffer at this time and therefore not to Transferable. There is a
high-level goal to keep the typed array specification as minimal as
possible, and having Transferable support leak in to the public
methods of the interfaces contradicts that goal.
I think there's broad enough consensus amongst vendors to table the discussion
about adding close to Transferable.
Would you please let me know why ypu believe ArrayBuffer should not have a
close method?
I would like some clarity here. The Typed Array spec would not be cluttered by
the addition of a simple close method.
It's certainly a matter of opinion -- but while it's only the addition
of one method, it changes typed arrays' semantics to be much closer to
manual memory allocation than they currently are. It would be a
further divergence in behavior from ordinary ECMAScript arrays.
The TC39 working group, I have heard, is incorporating typed arrays
into the language specification, and for this reason I believe extreme
care is warranted when adding more functionality to the typed array
spec. The spec can certainly move forward, but personally I'd like to
check with TC39 on semantic changes like this one. That's the
rationale behind my statement above about preferring not to add this
method at this time.
Searching through the net tells me that this has been a rumor for years.
I agree with taking extreme care -- so let's isolate one more bit of
information:
Is ArrayBuffer being proposed for TC39 incorporation, or is it only the
Typed Arrays? The idea here is to alter ArrayBuffer, an object which can
be neutered via transfer map. It seems a waste to have to create a
Worker to close down buffer views.
Will TC39 have anything to say about the "neuter" concept and/or Web
Messaging?
Again, I'm bringing this up for the same practical experience that
Blob.close() was brought up. I do appreciate that read/write allocation
is a separate semantic from write-once/read-many allocation.
I certainly don't want to derail the introduction of Typed Array into
TC39. I don't want to sit back for two years either, while the
ArrayBuffer object is in limbo.
If necessary, I'll do some of the nasty test work of creating a worker
simply to destroy buffers, and report back on it.
var worker = new Worker('trash.js');
worker.postMessage(null,[bufferToClose]);
worker.close();
vs.
bufferToClose.close();
-Charles
