Should MessagePort, MessageEvent and Transferrable be in their own module?

[JordanMartinez]

Transferrable is currently problematic as its a placeholder for a better solution, but I think the other two should be in their own module.

[gbagan]

Yes. It seems a good idea.
purescript-web-sockets also uses MessageEvent.

[JordanMartinez]

If that's where that type should be defined, then we should depend on that library rather than redefining it here.

[gbagan]

Why not, but ports and source are not defined here.

[JordanMartinez]

MessageEvent is not defined in the WebSockets spec either. They probably did the same thing we did here: define it locally so one can use it.

[gbagan]

If I understood correctly, we can:

create a repository for both MessagePort and MessageEvent since there are mutually dependent.
Put IsSendable in this repo.
Maybe, change web-sockets such that it depends on this repo but reexports the functions of MessageEvent such that we don't introduce a breaking change.
MessageEvent.source returns an opaque type MessageEventSource and there is a function

toMessagePort :: MessageEventSource -> Maybe MessagePort

What do you think?

[JordanMartinez]

Per the html spec that includes MessageEvent, I think the code should live in web-html.