ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics?
Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- usability for Web Crypto API
- Raised by:
- Ryan Sleevi
- Opened on:
- 2012-08-20
- Description:
- 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? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- New proposal for ISSUE-23 (Globally unique identifiers) (from watsonm@netflix.com on 2012-11-02)
- Re: crypto-ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics? (from sleevi@google.com on 2012-08-20)
- crypto-ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-08-20)
Related notes:
No additional notes.
Display change log
