[whatwg] Passing more than JSON data to workers
bzbarsky at MIT.EDU
Thu Dec 17 00:48:30 PST 2009
On 12/17/09 12:34 AM, Jan Fabry wrote:
> These three functions are equivalent to me.
They're meant to be, but also meant to be increasing in order of
> If no scope is given, the global scope is used, and then it depends on the state of the variables on the worker side.
Unlike the case when unqualified "foo" was used, in which case it got
the value of the "foo" property of the global object on the web page
side? That's the dichotomy I'm trying to understand.
> I do not have a concrete problem now,
That makes it really hard to design a solution.
It seems very difficult to me to come up with a "function cloning"
solution that won't break in subtle ways when such functions are passed
I'd really like to see specific use cases where we think this could be
useful, so that we can evaluate possible "function cloning" behaviors in
terms of their behavior on those use cases. Designing in a vacuum here
is not likely to work well, I suspect.
> When this discussion is over, I want to know why it is not implemented: because it leads to some undefinable situations, because it would be too complicated to teach to developers what does and what doesn't work, or because it is too difficult for implementors to do it right. But when I look at what browsers can do these days, I have not yet seen a limit to the intelligence of their developers :-)
More information about the whatwg