Thank you for not over-citing massively. Unlike Jonas and Rick :-P. On Aug 9, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > I reserve the right to quibble about details of your API, but I think the issues below are more significant than the actual API design > > > On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com> wrote: >>> below... >> ... >>> I don't know how set in stone the naming is, but you might also consider >>> reviewing some prior art (http://nodejs.org/api/fs.html) for method names >>> call signatures. >> >> Nothing is set in stone at this point. > > 1) It not clear to me why a completely new filesystem design and API is needed for the web platform. We have decades of experience with file systems and their APIs and have reached the point where there is only a handful of widely used designs in the world. I don't see why one of these designs (eg, Posix) couldn't be adopted by the web platform. No matter how simply you start it seems inevitable that the web platform FS will evolve to have all the features of a modern files system, so why not just start with an existing one. You assume too much. The Filesystem API mega thread goes back years on public-webapps, and many of us involved are fully Unix (POSix, capitalized that way on purpose -- feh) aware. I am old enough to remember 16-bit seek offsets (pre-lseek). We are not blank-slateists here. Did you actually review any of the API with an eye on POSIX? Unix is expressed in C, so that is the first big source of difference. Promises hit hard too. /be
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 01:46:26 UTC