On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:03:58 +0200, Aaron Boodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It doesn't make sense to change this given that all synthesized event
dispatching is synchronous. I don't think postMessage() should be
different.
It seems a little different to me. PostMesasge events are fired in
another frame that the caller can't even see into. What difference
does it make to the caller whether postMessage is synchronous or not?
This does not have to be any different for cross-frame events. The only
difference is that cross-frame synthesized events don't work cross-origin.
Furthermore, if we're going to add the ability for the conversation to
go back and forth, to me it gets strange.
You need to the asynchronous coding for that case anyway. (Unless both
parties know what they're going to say.)
If you call postMessage() on a frame, and it returns the favor, you
receive the reply before your call to postMessage() even returns. To
me, the current shape of the API (and even the name 'post message')
implies that this is an asynchronous system and that postMessage()
returns immediately, queuing a message to be delivered to the other
window.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
