W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [XHR2] ArrayBuffer support added

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:01:05 +0100
To: "Charles Pritchard" <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "ATSUSHI TAKAYAMA" <taka.atsushi@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <op.vqdh33ny64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:56:13 +0100, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>  
wrote:
> But in the present, we've got XMLHttpRequest, with CORS semantics, and  
> all other manner of goodness.
> EventSource seems to me, to have different use cases than the simpler  
> XHR.

Yes, it is meant for streaming. XMLHttpRequest isn't really. (And  
EventSource will get CORS in due course.)


> XHR is a pretty stable and well supported method, it seems that it'd be  
> reasonably straightforward
> to take the current good-will around that standard, and see if a second  
> ArrayBuffer response type is warranted.

I rather wait until all the new features are more widely adopted and  
tested. Then we can see if they have been a success and if we need more.


> One nice thing to come out of it, saving a large file to a disk via XHR  
> and FileWriter would be made
> much easier, with no need for temporary storage locations.
>
> Even with blob saved to disk, it'd take a lot of special case  
> optimizations to make it efficient to copy
> that Blob to a new file. It'd likely require a copy, instead of what's  
> likely wanted: writing the file once.
>
> Developing this now could have a positive effect on a future EventSource  
> standard.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 10:01:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT