- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:35:28 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: >> Though admittedly I'm biased because I'm not sold on the whole >> FileSystem API and I don't expect anyone will step up and implement it >> in firefox anytime soon. > > Care to elaborate? I don't see any significant advantages over the other storage methods we already have defined for Files and Blobs, specifically localStorage and IndexDB. And there are significant advantages of using a database to store files. For example if you're storing emails in a database, you can just stick the attachments as a property of the emails. And things like filename collisions and finename charset encodings and case sensitivity become a thing of the past. Note that just because the APIs expose the files as being stored in the database, doesn't mean that the implementation has to physically store the files in the database if that is bad performance wise. And there security aspects involved as well. I'm not entirely comfortable with any site being able to write just any file to my file system. For example writing viruses or malware seems like asking for trouble. The only use case I have heard for FileSystem over IndexDB is that with FileSystem OS software like iTunes and iPhoto can pick up and index music and images stored by the site. While neat, this doesn't seem particularly urgent. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 10:36:27 UTC