On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > b = new Blob([blob1, blob2, "some string", myArrayBuffer]); > To give another comparison, this incremental appending: bb = new BlobBuilder(); ongotdataevent = function(blobToAppend) { bb.append(blobToAppend); } ondatafinishedevent = function() { b = bb.getBlob(); } can become: var b = new Blob(); ongotdataevent = function(blobToAppend) { b = new Blob(b, blobToAppend); } which is nice, too. (UAs should optimize this to avoid O(n^2) copying, of course.) On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > 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. > Blobs, or parts of Blobs, can be backed by files on disk too. You don't need BlobBuilder to get that functionality. -- Glenn MaynardReceived on Monday, 24 October 2011 23:22:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT