W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [FileAPI] FileReader.abort() and File[Saver|Writer].abort have different behaviors

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:28:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei89As9mZiNKZ=UTpZ-E1Z72AqgBnmVEsDLLfBApOVm4Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: Eric U <ericu@google.com>, arun@mozilla.com, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Eric U <ericu@google.com> wrote:
>> Indeed--however, from a quick skim of XHR and XHR2, that's not what
>> they do.  They let open() terminate abort(), however far along it's
>> gotten.  If we did that, then an abort killed by a read might lead to
>> the aborted read never getting an onloadend.  But you could still get
>> the stack-busting chain of onloadstart/onabort.
> Yuck.  I agree that's not a good thing to mimic for the sake of
> consistency.  Anne, is this intentional, or just something XHR is just stuck
> with for compatibility?  It looks like a new problem in XHR2--this couldn't
> happen in XHR1, because there was no abort event fired before loadend.
>> If we wanted to prevent read methods from being called during abort,
>> we'd probably want to do that by setting an "aborting" flag or mucking
>> around with yet another readyState of ABORTING.
> That's annoying, but it's better than the current situation, and I think
> better than the XHR situation.  Receiving loadstart should guarantee the
> receipt of loadend.
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> 1. onloadstart fires exactly once
>> 2. There will be one onprogress event fired when 100% progress is reached
>> 3. Exactly one of onabort, onload and onerror fires
>> 4. onloadend fires exactly once.
>> 6. no onprogress events fire before onloadstart
>> 5. no onprogress events fire after onabort/onload/onerror
>> 6. no onabort/onoad/onerror events fire after onloadend
> 7. after loadstart is fired, loadstart is not fired again until loadend has
> been fired (ie. only one set of progress events can be active on an object
> at one time).
> More precisely: loadstart should not be fired again until the dispatch of
> loadend *has completed*.  That is, you can't start a new progress sequence
> from within loadend, either, because there may be other listeners on the
> object that havn't yet received the loadend.

I don't think we can do that for XHR without breaking backwards compat.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 21:28:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:35 UTC