[whatwg] Changing postMessage() to allow sending unentangled ports
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Sep 2 15:34:48 PDT 2009
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
> I'm saying that we should differentiate between the "closed" state and
> "cloned" state. Implementors effectively need to do this anyway, because
> the spec says that closed ports are still task sources, while cloned
> ports are not.
> It makes sense to be able to post closed ports via postmessage() because
> they are still task sources so the recipient could attach an onmessage
> handler and pull messages off them.
> It makes no sense to re-send an already-cloned port since it's not a
> task source and can't ever be a task source again (no way to send
> messages to it). Likewise it is no longer entangled and so you can't
> send messages via it. Re-sending a cloned port is an error, and we
> should treat it as such.
I've made the two postMessage() methods that post MessagePort objects
throw INVALID_STATE_ERR if any of their ports have already been cloned.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg