[whatwg] Structured clone algorithm a little too friendly?
jorlow at chromium.org
Thu Mar 11 03:10:46 PST 2010
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Mikko Rantalainen <
mikko.rantalainen at peda.net> wrote:
> timeless wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:50 AM, ben turner <bent at mozilla.com> wrote:
> >> - If input is a host object (e.g. a DOM node)
> >> Return the null value.
> > The general reason, I believe for this behavior is if you have:
> > a=[x,y,z,q,r,s]; worker.postMessage(a) and r turns out to be window,
> > you don't want to trigger an exception just because one value in a
> > list is a native object.
> Why do you think so? I'd expect an exception instead of potential data
> loss (due to not being to able to post the actual data to the worker).
> I'd be happy to filter the "r" out of the list if I need to, but I'd
> hate to try to figure why *some* of the data I was posting does not show
> up at the worker. Obviously, if I know that I cannot post "r" and I
> don't want to do the filtering myself, it would be nice to have an extra
> parameter for postMessage() telling that it's okay to drop some data if
> it cannot be transferred but that should not be the default. However, I
> would consider that a special case and API could do just fine without
> such feature.
FWIW, I'd have to agree that throwing an exception when there's something
that can't be completely serialized makes sense, but I haven't been
following structured clone discussions, so I don't know whether this has
come up before and if there was a good reason for what's currently being
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg