Re: [whatwg/streams] What should we call ReadableByteStream.prototype.getBYOBReader()? (#294)

> If we introduce the feature, we would need to also add a new interface to the controller. Then, the controller will gain one more new feature in addition to BYOB. Considering such possibility, I was leaning toward giving more general name to it. Of course, we could just add a new controller. WDYT?

Hmm, it is hard to say. Whether we introduce a new controller or not would depend on how different the internal state tracking would be.

I guess I see two options:

- Go with BYOB, and maybe in the future change if we decide that the same controller needs more responsibilities, we can probably rename it since it is not very web-exposed
- Avoid any possibility of future conflicts by just making the change to ReadableStreamBytesController (ReadableByteStreamController is probably better?) now.

I am OK with either.

So the total changes being contemplated here are:

- Merge getBYOBReader into getReader using `{ mode: "byob" }` as an argument
- (Maybe) rename ReadableStreamBYOBController to ReadableStreamBytesController  or ReadableByteStreamController

But no renaming for ReadableStreamBYOBReader or ReadableStreamBYOBRequest or for the underlying source option (`byob: true`). Right?

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/streams/issues/294#issuecomment-204590730