W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [File API] events vs callbacks

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:18:10 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660908111618l60a9f75qf3da50f717f1125d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, arun@mozilla.com, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Olli Pettay<Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On 8/11/09 11:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> My concern isn't that there are ways of using it correctly, my concern
>> is that it's very easy to use incorrectly with bugs as a result.
>
> How? Especially if we prevent more than one read at time. How is the
> situation any worse than with XHR?
>

As stated, anyone can request a resource via XHR at anytime. Old CGI
progs were single threaded, but modern programs are multi-threaded
(e.g. Servlet), there is no prerequisite to ask the server if a file
read is OK first. Caller makes an XHR and it either succeeds or
doesn't. XHR doesn't require expectation on the caller; what state is
the file in.

Besides a file shouldn't be having behavior (read, write, delete).
Insted it hould be just having some properties like "name" or "size".
A good reason for having a separate object for read().

More in mail to Jonas,. I'm not done with that mail yet.

Garrett

>
>> This
>> concern exists as long as the read API is available on the File object
>> itself. We could make File not inherit FileData, but that wasn't the
>> proposal made so far.
>>
>> Also note that progress events don't contain the actual data. So so
>> far no-one has made a proposal what allows for streaming, which I
>> would have thought would be an integral part of progress events.
>
> Indeed. Progress events should be probably extended to contain data.
> (Progress Events Level 2?)
>
>
> -Olli
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 23:18:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT