[whatwg] Workers proposal
jonas at sicking.cc
Thu Aug 21 09:12:50 PDT 2008
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 we
> did put onerror on ports, it would be difficult to define which ports
> actually get the error events.
> It would also mean not using a constructor, but that's fine.
> Finally, it would make extending the interface later much harder if we
> found that it was useful to allow different users of the shared worker to
> control something.
> Anyone else have any opinions on this?
Yeah, I don't feel strongly either way here. It feels "cleaner" to not
have separate SharedWorker instances for each user of a shared worker,
but there are also downsides with not doing that (like onerror and other
future properties that we might want).
So I'm fine either way.
>> I think startConversation makes as much sense on shared workers as
>> dedicated ones, so moving that API up to Worker/WorkerGlobalScope seems
>> like a good idea.
> startConversation is on the port(s) in the shared worker case. I'm not
> sure what it would mean on the worker or global scope in the shared case,
> since there's no target without the port in that case.
Ah, of course.
>> If we keep the constructors (see first paragraph), I would prefer the
>> syntax "new Worker" over "new DedicatedWorker".
> That's fine, I can change the base to be AbstractWorker and then have
> Worker and SharedWorker as the interfaces inheriting from it.
Sounds good to me.
More information about the whatwg