Adam Rice

> Interesting, could Fetch have used something else? I wasn't involved in the original discussion, but if I understand it correctly it was a compromise to ensure that `response.arrayBuffer()` and...

How it works for non-blocking TCP is that userspace asks to write N bytes, and the kernel responds synchronously that it managed to write M bytes, where M

@isonmad We need a four-letter acronym for your suggestion, to go with BYOB and KYOB (Keep Your Own Buffer). I propose PUTB (Please Use This Buffer). I guess RBYOB also...

Another option is to have no special optimised byte Writer at all. If you wanted optimal behaviour you would create a byte ReadableStream and pipe that to the byte WritableStream....

@isonmad Pertinent to your comment, at the Streams session at BlinkOn 7 we briefly discussed the interaction between Streams and WebAssembly. There was talk of "partially" detaching ArrayBuffers, so that...

The byte-level access controls proposed by https://gist.github.com/dherman/5463054 are more elegant than our current detaching semantics I think. It would also provide a neat solution for tee(). Yay! However, without those...

On the other hand, if you create a byte stream, the `highWaterMark` is always interpreted as bytes. Maybe we should recommend that instead?

Strawman proposal: Can we split the TransformStream controller into a readable controller and a writable controller? The readable controller would be the one that is passed into transform() methods, since...

My idea is that the interface to transformer-authors or transform-consumers doesn't change: only the internal implementation. So for default->default transform streams it would look exactly the same as it does...

I thought about it a bit more, and decided that talking about multiple controllers on a single object was just confusing. Instead, what I think we should do is rename...