23477 2013-10-10 01:42:28 +0000 Since ArrayBuffer is now part of ES directly, you can't do ArrayBuffer implements Transferable 2014-02-06 20:19:00 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#transferable-objects P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian annevk bzbarsky cam ian mike contributor oldest_to_newest 94532 0 contributor 2013-10-10 01:42:28 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-dom-interfaces.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#transferable-objects Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#transferable-objects Referrer: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/browsers.html Comment: Since ArrayBuffer is now part of ES directly, you can't do ArrayBuffer implements Transferable Posted from: 98.110.194.76 by bzbarsky@mit.edu User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 94533 1 bzbarsky 2013-10-10 01:43:07 +0000 In fact, it may be better to just define Transferable to be a union or something... The problem is if other specs want to add new transferables. :( 94534 2 ian 2013-10-10 02:06:09 +0000 Uh, wait, what? Why is ES not compatible with the way the Web platform works...? 94537 3 bzbarsky 2013-10-10 02:30:21 +0000 Well, more precisely ES doesn't know anything about WebIDL interfaces and WebIDL doesn't know anything about using ES built-in types as interface types. Saying "ArrayBuffer implements Transferable" means about the same as "Array implements Transferable" in spec terms: since the LHS is not a WebIDL interface in either case, WebIDL doesn't allow you to say that.... We should probably fix that; it's not quite clear how. Both in specs and in implementations. In practice, for now Gecko will be typedeffing Transferable to a union type or something. 94609 4 ian 2013-10-11 23:21:21 +0000 I guess we can just have a union and require that if a new type is added, HTML gets updated. :-( heycam: unless you have a way to fix this on the IDL side (note in particular that the right hand side of 'implements' here is an empty interface). 94630 5 annevk 2013-10-13 09:36:13 +0000 Well, strictly speaking IDL does not know about ES types at all (e.g. you cannot say something accepts an ArrayBuffer). That seems like what should be fixed here. 94640 6 ian 2013-10-13 20:58:19 +0000 That needs to be fixed too, but I was using Transferable as a way to annotate interfaces, that also broke. 94643 7 annevk 2013-10-13 21:09:56 +0000 The long term solution to this is https://github.com/dslomov-chromium/ecmascript-structured-clone integrated into ES by the way. Making ES aware of structured cloning and multiple globals, and then retrofit the platform language in terms of that. 94646 8 cam 2013-10-13 22:49:06 +0000 Aside from needing to move the typed array intefaces types into built-in type names in Web IDL, perhaps we should have a way of tagging types as being transferable that does not use "implements" (and therefore does not require them to be interfaces). 94651 9 annevk 2013-10-14 09:26:55 +0000 Yeah, the long term solution would basically demand an IDL annotation for an object being transferable. It would then have an ES [[Transfer]] and such operator defined. 94673 10 ian 2013-10-14 18:44:47 +0000 That would work too, but it would be less pretty since then I'd need both a union and a way to annotate types. 94790 11 annevk 2013-10-15 17:16:55 +0000 I think IDL could also offer a type that represents objects that have [[Transfer]] to take care of that. But yes, that would also be needed. 96463 12 ian 2013-11-18 22:33:25 +0000 heycam, I think Anne's suggestion is the best so far: a way to annotate types, and then a type that means "all the types that were so annotated". Kind of like an automatic union. This would presumably look like this on the annotaton side: [PleaseAlsoConsiderThisTypeToBeA=Transferable] interface Foo { ... } ...and like this on the use side: void myMethod(Transferable quux); Is that feasible? (Presumably we'd then say that ArrayBuffer was one of these on the prose side, since ES doesn't use IDL?) 99944 13 ian 2014-02-06 20:19:00 +0000 I ended up just hard-coding it all in HTML. If new specs want to add new Transferables, they can just ask and I'll add it.