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

Re: Alternative File API

From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:42:04 -0700
Message-ID: <278fd46c0908172342p3289b04cj5faec58c5e5df8e1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Cc: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Olli Pettay<Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On 8/17/09 12:33 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, I think the seperate 'Reader' class makes for a more
>> correct API. The two corners above would not conflict since each would
>> presumably be working with a distinct FileReader object. And the
>> seperate 'Reader' with event handlers seems more javscript'y.
> I agree with this. Reader+events 'feels' pretty much what I'd like to see.

I don't think javascriptyness is a good attribute to argue about. In a
group this large, with different backgrounds, this just comes down to

I don't personally care for a separate Reader object or events, and
don't feel like such is javascripty. But <meh>. The truth is the web
platform is inconsistent already. Having this go one way or the other
is not going to ruin it.

Best to argue for what the goals should be, then for what solves them,
objectively. There seems to be two points of argument:

a) Whether it is worth supporting progress events
b) Whether the platform should directly support multiple listeners on
a single file read operation

For a), as much as I dislike it stylistically, I think that in this
case we should err on the side of power. If the raw API does not
support progress events, they will be impossible to implement. If the
raw API does support progress events, people can ignore them if they

For b), I don't buy that it is valuable to support this directly. In
the vast majority of cases, a file operation is something with one
caller. If people really want to broadcast events, they can do that

- a
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 06:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:18 UTC