W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: XHR responseArrayBuffer attribute: suggestion to replace "asBlob" with "responseType"

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:41:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4CCA5074.8010106@mit.edu>
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
CC: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, michaeln@google.com, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, jorlow@google.com
On 10/29/10 12:15 AM, James Robinson wrote:
> Are we talking about ArrayBuffer here or Blob?

The former.

> It's never acceptable to block javascript on a synchronous disk access

Why?

Other questions to consider:

1)  Why is it ok to block it on a synchronous disk access due to being 
paged in but not to block on a synchronous disk access due to reading a 
file descriptor?  Or is the former not acceptable too?

2)  Why is it ok to block on a synchronous disk access due to being 
paged in but not to block on a synchronous disk access due to having the 
backing store for your mmap moved from disk to RAM?  Or is the latter 
acceptable?

But if we posit this, how author-hostile would an API that provides 
asynchronous access to the byte buffer, with a callback when it's 
available, be?  Would you be willing to implement that in Chrome?

-Boris
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 04:42:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT