W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [FileAPI] Blob.URN?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:35:28 -0700
Message-ID: <n2r63df84f1004290335yc1cd1664ra7f1e462536a4e2a@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT