W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: FileSystem compromise spec

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:11:37 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, ext Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>
CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C3510790EC0@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:46 AM
> To: ext Eric U; Doug Schepers
> Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: FileSystem compromise spec
> 
> On 11/15/12 7:39 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
> > As discussed at TPAC, there's little support for the current FileSystem API, but
> > some support for a new API, and I promised to put forth a compromise proposal.
> > In order to do that, I'd like to hear 1) what kinds of changes would make it
> > more popular; 2) who I'm trying to convince.  There are a number of folks who
> > have said that they're not interested in a FileSystem API at all, so I'd rather
> > concentrate my efforts on those with skin in the game.
> >

Note that even though we are a service provider and not a browser vendor, I do consider us to have "skin in the game".

> >    * It's designed to handle both the sandbox and the
> >      outside-the-sandbox use cases.  For folks interested in just the sandbox and
> >      no future expansions, that seems like wasted effort, and a sandbox-only API
> >      could be simpler.  It's not clear to me that there is anyone interested in
> >      just the sandbox and no future expansions, but if there is, please speak up.
> >      I've certainly heard from folks with the opposite goal.

I am still looking for evidence that IndexedDB provides a high-performance, scalable, cross-domain alternative to native filesystem access. I've seen conflicting information on that, and will gather this information with whatever tests can be found to validate performance of browsers for IndexedDB.

> It seems like it would be useful to look at these various file and
> database specs from a high level use case perspective (f.ex. "one way to
> address UC X is to use spec X"). If anyone is aware of some related
> docs, please let me know. Doug - wondering aloud here if this is
> something webplatform.org might cover or if you know of someone that
> might be interested in creating this type of documentation?

In the Web & TV IG I will be leading a task force specifically to address the recording and storage of media use cases, where storage options are the key focus. If someone can prove to us that "in-the-sandbox" storage addresses the needs (high-performance, scalable, cross-domain) then great; otherwise we will keep looking.

> >
> > I'd like to hear from folks who are interested, but not in the current spec.
> >

I note that this request seems to exclude (or recommend silence) of counter-points from those that *want the current specs* as mentioned by Eric. So if there is a lack of contribution from those that support the other use cases noted (e.g. out-of-the-sandbox storage), it should not be taken as consensus with the alternative as discussed in this thread.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 17:13:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:56 GMT