On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Kris Maglione <kmagli...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:35:10PM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >> What's the current outlook on letting chrome JS read ArrayBuffers as >> opposed to JS strings where the high 8 bits are zero and the low 8 >> bits are the byte values from XPCOM streams? (Or letting chrome JS >> access things that are currently exposed as XPCOM streams via some >> other thing that exposes bytes as ArrayBuffers?) > > > This is already possible via nsIBinaryInputStream: > > http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/571c1fd0ba0617f83175ccc06ed6f3eb0a1a8b92/xpcom/io/nsIBinaryInputStream.idl#71-82
The stated purpose of nsIBinaryInputStream is very different from the stated purpose of nsIScriptableInputStream. Since the needed code is already in the former, should we nonetheless tell people to use the former and deprecate the latter instead of trying to modernize the latter within its stated purpose? (I'd be fine with changing the documentation on both IDLs to broaden the stated purpose of nsIBinaryInputStream and to deprecate and hopefully subsequently remove nsIScriptableInputStream. Fewer nsIFoo is better.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
