<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Kelly Norton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:knorton@google.com">knorton@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
One thing about postMessage that I'm curious about. Since it has to report failure synchronously by throwing an INVALID_STATE_ERR, that seems to imply that all data must be written to a socket before returning and cannot be asynchronously delivered to an I/O thread without adding some risk of silently dropping messages. </blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I don't think that's the intent of the spec - the intent is that INVALID_STATE_ERR is sent if the port is in a closed state, not if there's an I/O error after send. But Michael's right, I don't think there's any way to determine that the server received the message - I guess the intent is that applications will build their own send/ack protocol on top of postMessage(), as you note.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-atw</div></div>