W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:16:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA89982.5010907@mozilla.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>
On 4/15/11 2:57 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> FileReader is extremely similar to XMLHttpRequest. The main difference
>> is in how you initiate the request (.open/.send vs. .readAsX). This
>> similarity is even getting stronger now that XHR gets .result.
>>
>> So I think there are good reasons to sticking to XMLHttpRequest here too.
>>
>> Note that no "error" events are fired by XMLHttpRequest. Just an
>> "abort" event. So "error" is still reserved for actual reading errors
>> whereas "abort" will fire for script-initiated aborts.
>>
>> I agree that calling .readAsX multiple times could be an indication of
>> developer bugs and as such could throw an exception. However I think
>> given the precedence set by XMLHttpRequest it could just as well mean
>> that a new resource is now the one that the author is interested in
>> reading.
> With this in mind, I don't personally have a strong feeling either way
> between having to call abort() explicitly or having readAsXXX implicitly
> call abort(). I've discussed it with others at Microsoft this week and the
> consensus here is that the defensive exception is better and that developers
> should have to call abort() if they want to abandon the current operation.
> I think we could live with either but right now we're planning for throwing
> the exception. We'd like to make a decision one way or the other pretty soon.

Adrian: I'm keen to have behavior similar to XHR, and not raise an 
exception in this case.  From your note above, I'm gathering you can 
live with an XHR-style abort which FileReader can fire on readAsXXX 
calls that have been superseded.

Eric: can you point out where you think FileReader explicitly deviates 
in style from XHR2?

-- A*
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 19:16:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:44 GMT