- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:36:23 -0700
- To: Web Cryptography Working Group <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Web Cryptography Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > crypto-ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics? > > http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/23 > > Raised by: Ryan Sleevi > On product: > > Transferrable allows an object to be passed over a MessagePort, which allows it to be used with Web Workers. During initial discussions, it was suggested that CryptoOperations or Keys should have defined Transferrable semantics. > > The outstanding questions are: > 1) Is there consensus to support Transferrable semantics? > 2) If so, what are the use cases for Transferrables? > 3) Because CryptoOperations represent objects with bound callbacks, what should the behaviour be for these Callbacks? > 4) What happens if an object is Transferred in the midst of an operation? > 5) If Key participates in the "structured clone algorithm", does it also need to be Transferrable? > This is similar to the clone() question, but specifically about whether either object should support the "structured clone algorithm" and/or be Transferrable. This is also closely related to ISSUE-8, which is about describing key neutering.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 14:36:48 UTC