W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [FileReader API, ProgressEvents] Design patterns, FileWriter API

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:55:19 -0800
Message-ID: <4B048967.7000707@mozilla.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> XHR still is used also for data retrieval, so it is a kind of border case and I can live with "load" there :) .
>
> Using "load" for writing to a file will mean that we are stuck with the legacy stuff. "load" and "write" pull semantically in the opposite directions, IMHO.
>
> I think there is still time to change it in case of FileReader and prepare background for FileWriter.
>   

To be clear, IMHO it's absolutely too late for FileReader, and also not 
desirable.  I've already mentioned developer familiarity with onload, 
etc. and I strongly disagree with changing names in this case.  The 
existing progress events are fine for FileReader.  We've also got a beta 
implementation in place in Fx 3.6.

Regarding FileWriter, I'm open to considering new event names, but in 
general, discussing FileWriter's event model may be putting the cart in 
front of the horse.  Even if we had an event-driven FileWriter, what 
would it do?  We'll need to figure out filesystem access (real or 
virtual) first! :-)  More on this topic in separate email.

-- A*
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 23:56:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:01 GMT