- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:48:00 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Hi All, > > XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However > there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data. ... Agreed. I proposed something similar in January, with fixed buffer lengths: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0304.html Fixed buffers are somewhat common with more data intense network processing. They may trigger quite a few more progress events, but they guarantee an upper size in memory usage / array length. ... > Same thing when .responseType is set to "streaming-arraybuffer". In > this case .response is set to an ArrayBuffer containing the data > received since the last "progress" event. > > There is one non-ideal thing with this solution. Once the last chunk > of data has arrived, at least Firefox doesn't fire a "progress" event, > but instead just a "load" event. This means that people will have to > consume data both from the "progress" event and from the "load" event. > > Another solution would to make sure to always fire a "progress" event > for the last data before firing the "load" event. I personally like > this approach more. There *might* even be reasons to do that to ensure > that pages create progress bars that reliably reach 100% etc. > I agree to this, too. For a stream, load may be the same thing as stop, and not have result data. Anne suggested using EventSource and other WebSockets style semantics instead of overloading XHR2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0314.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0375.html I'd be happy-enough just having a streaming binary buffer. -Charles
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 00:48:47 UTC