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

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

From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:35:56 +0100
To: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FAA1D89C5BAF1142A74AF116630A9F2C28942D758E@OBEEX01.obe.access-company.com>
Hi Arun,

>> To be clear, IMHO it's absolutely too late for FileReader
FileReader is still ED, therefore we may have time, I think.

>>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! :-)
Agreed.
I have been thinking in terms of API design patterns and IMHO their target is to first document what we have in order to be able to foresee potential incompatibilities.
That is why I shout early :)

Thanks,
Marcin

Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:arun@mozilla.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:55 AM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: [FileReader API, ProgressEvents] Design patterns, FileWriter API

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*

________________________________________

Access Systems Germany GmbH
Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda

www.access-company.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 10:37:02 GMT

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