W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Use cases (appcache, etc) Re: Using progress events for other purposes

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:10:43 +0200
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u12n35x4wxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:13:23 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:30:31 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile  
> <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:48:04 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile  
>> <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:04:04 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
>>
>>> I propose to add the attributes totalItems and loadedItems to  
>>> preogress events, as a way of dealing with use cases like showing  
>>> progress in downloading an application cache. This allows for firing  
>>> progress events which have total/loaded values on individual items, by  
>>> defining them as referring to the current item in the presence of the  
>>> totalIems / loadedItems.
>>
>> Doe anyone have a use case or preference for making these a long long,  
>> or is a long enough?
>
> If only a subset of the attributes ends up being used, i.e. appcache is  
> not going to dispatch progress events more often than one per file, I do  
> not think this feature is worth it to be honest. Because for appcache  
> total and loaded would always be 0 and for XMLHttpRequest totalItems and  
> loadedITems would always be 0.

Quite true. The hypothesis is that appcache may end up dealing with files  
where progress events *are* disaptched more than once per file, for  
example collecting a cache which has a 1MB video over a slow line.

> Are there any other cases worth considering?

The other use case [1] that motivated this was a mail client downloading a  
number of distinct emails as objects, where some of them could be very  
large.

My assumption is that these are real use cases, which is why I made the  
proposal (and bothered doing the thinking to try and spec it out). It's up  
to the group to decide, of course.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/op.u0xi82ucwxe0ny@widsith.eng.oslo.osa

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 00:11:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:34 GMT