- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:15:00 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25343 --- Comment #18 from Arun <arun@mozilla.com> --- (In reply to Simon Pieters from comment #17) > That seems reasonable. > > OTOH, maybe developers will get into a habit of always checking .isClosed > before reading even if there's no reason for doing so, which is wasting > time. Or they think it is enough to check "isClosed" and think it is a > guarantee that it will be readable, and don't handle the other error cases. I can't argue with this. It's quite possibly true that this feature can lead to shallow error handling. However, the same argument was made about Blob.close() itself, and this property is tightly coupled to some code block within the web developer's purview actually *calling* Blob.close(); other error conditions might occur outside of the purview of a web developer's code (e.g. file errors). On balance, I'm still closer to wanting to put it in than leaving it out. Everyone one else that has commented here seems closer to the middle ground (e.g. no strong opinions). This point from Comment #16 seems to help decide matters: "If there was any concern that adding .isClosed would have a higher cost in the future then I'd definitely agree that we should wait for stronger use cases before adding it. Is there any such concern here?" I'm not sure what exactly would constitute higher cost. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 15:15:01 UTC