[whatwg] reply() extension to postMessage()
ian at hixie.ch
Sat Mar 1 20:49:58 PST 2008
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > Because then you could only pass an endpoint across a pipe once. The
> > idea is to be able to send both ends across pipes many times.
> Passing an endpoint multiple times would create multiple clones anyway
> so I don't see the advantage to just passing in a pipe and have a new
> other end of the pipe being created every time? But I don't really see
> the use case for this anyway? If you really need to have multiple things
> sending you events you might as well create multiple pipes all using the
> same event handlers.
> The one thing that I agree you couldn't do with my proposal is to pass
> both ends of a pipe around. You also couldn't pass one end multiple
> times. But again, I'd like to hear what the use case is?
> And even that could be done by proxying messages.
The main idea is to allow for capabilities-based messaging without
proxying. For example, having a page negotiate a connection between two
<iframe> widgets, and then stepping away from them. Or a handle to a
worker being passed to a gadget in another domain, and the worker itself
later delegating the work to another worker.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg