W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Resumable Uploads

From: Felix Geisendörfer <felix@transloadit.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:58:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CADZbJ9dGEVq-fQmhjRsddYdcg459r_zLfrOddkzHLOprZM0dNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>, Kevin Swiber <kswiber@gmail.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Thanks for the replies!

Using PATCH with a custom media type is unfortunately not a viable solution
for browser based clients.  The XHR2 send interface [1] and File API [2]
are not flexible enough to perform the body wrapping without loading the
entire request body into memory. There is no way to stream body data other
than providing a file object (or a slice of it).

This makes specifying the enclosed byte-range in the request header the
most desirable option. So far we are abusing the "Content-Range" header for
this (and so does the YouTube API [3]).

So I'm wondering what you'd consider to be the lesser evil: Using
Content-Range for this, or creating a custom header?

Don't get me wrong, I really want a proper solution for this in the long
run and would love to help with specifying it, if it's an interesting
problem to solve with http2. But if such a solution can't be had today, I'd
still like to create a stopgap for now.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/#the-send-method
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/
[3]
https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/using_resumable_upload_protocol

--
Felix Geisendörfer (felixge.de)
Co-Founder, Transloadit (transloadit.com)
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 07:58:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC