[whatwg] reply() extension to postMessage()
ian at hixie.ch
Sat Mar 1 11:14:36 PST 2008
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > Over the past few days I've been working on something similar:
> > http://hixie.ch/specs/dom/messages/0.9
> So this draft makes one of the two endpoints cross scope, i.e. it is
> created in one window, and are then passed over to the other. This is a
> major pain security wise. For example, what happens to expando
> properties set on the object?
I updated the proposal recently (in response to similar feedback from Adam
or Collin) to say that when you pass an EndPoint through postMessage(),
what happens is that a clone EndPoint is made for delivery on the other
side, and the EndPoint you passed becomes invalid.
> I too am strongly in favor of having synchronous message. Asynchronous
> things are in general harder for developers to understand. And while
> Synchronous things generally are evil when it comes to network loads, I
> see no such problems here.
Yeah I think postMessage() would be synchronous. It would have to be async
when talking across workers, though:
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg