Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Do we really need the SharedWorker interface. I.e. couldn't we just
return a MessagePort?
We could. It would mean either putting onerror on all message ports, or
not reporting error information for shared workers. Actually even if w
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> Do we really need the SharedWorker interface. I.e. couldn't we just
> return a MessagePort?
We could. It would mean either putting onerror on all message ports, or
not reporting error information for shared workers. Actually even if we
did put oner
This is looking great. A few comments though (of course :) )
Do we really need the SharedWorker interface. I.e. couldn't we just
return a MessagePort? This would probably require that we use a factory
function rather than a constructor, like "getPortForSharedWorker" or
some such. In other word
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've received feedback from a number of people requesting a rethink to the
> API for creating and communicating with workers.
>
> Here is a skeleton of a new proposal. It makes the following changes:
>
> * Shared workers
