Re: Is BlobBuilder needed?

It's nice. Like Ojan said, I don't see this as mutually exlusive with
BlobBuilder either. There's nother peice of data to associate with a
blob... the content-type... that would need to be provided in the ctor.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> It was pointed out to me on twitter that BlobBuilder can be replaced
>> with simply making Blob constructable. I.e. the following code:
>>
>> var bb = new BlobBuilder();
>> bb.append(blob1);
>> bb.append(blob2);
>> bb.append("some string");
>> bb.append(myArrayBuffer);
>> var b = bb.getBlob();
>>
>> would become
>>
>> b = new Blob([blob1, blob2, "some string", myArrayBuffer]);
>>
>
> I like this API. I think we should add it regardless of whether we get rid
> of BlobBuilder. I'd slightly prefer saying that Blob takes varargs and rely
> on ES6 fanciness to expand the array into varargs.
>
> In theory, a BlobBuilder could be backed by a file on disk, no? The
> advantage is that if you're building something very large, you don't
> necessarily need to be using all that memory. You can imagine a UA having
> Blobs be fully in-memory until they cross some size threshold.
>
>
>> or look at it another way:
>>
>> var x = new BlobBuilder();
>> becomes
>> var x = [];
>>
>> x.append(y);
>> becomes
>> x.push(y);
>>
>> var b = x.getBlob();
>> becomes
>> var b = new Blob(x);
>>
>> So at worst there is a one-to-one mapping in code required to simply
>> have |new Blob|. At best it requires much fewer lines if the page has
>> several parts available at once.
>>
>> And we'd save a whole class since Blobs already exist.
>>
>> / Jonas
>>
>>
>