W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: FileSystem API - overwrite flag for copy/move?

From: Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 18:12:12 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikTO6u+SzMNOpyM+4G234G0=dm4mKLWzttoviAn@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a question about Entry.moveTo/copyTo behavior defined in
> the File API: Directories and System [1].
> Currently the API doesn't specify how Entry.moveTo() and copyTo() should
> behave
> when a source entry is a file and there's *already* a file at the
> destination path.
> Should UAs overwrite the existing file at the destination path or not?
> Or maybe we should add an 'overwrite' flag to indicate if the script wants
> to overwrite an existing file or not?

I'm open to a flag.  We're already up to 4 parameters to each of those
methods, though...5 is a bit ungainly.  I'm concerned that we might
find another flag to add at some point, and we'd then be up to 6.
What about adding an flags object, as in getFile, to allow for
expansion?

> Similarly I wondered if we'd want to have a 'recursive' flag for
> moveTo/copyTo.
> I think for directories we can simply assume that the user wants to
> move/copy
> them recursively, but it might be good to add some notion about that in the
> spec.

How about I add a note indicating that directory copies are always recursive?
I don't think we need anything for move.

> Thanks,
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-dir-sys.html
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 01:13:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT