- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:54:08 -0700
- To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 19:23, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> On the topic of getting rid of BlobBuilder, do you have thoughts on losing >>> the ability to back it by an on-disk file? >> >> I'm not sure I understand the problem. A Blob can also be backed by a >> on-disk file. >> >> Could you elaborate? > > I think the point is that with the old one you could generate lots of > data, add that to the blob, generate a lot more data and add that to > the blob. After every add it might be safe to gc that data. With this > proposal all that data needs to be in memory at the point of > construction. > > Could we add a concat like method to Blob that returns a new "larger" blob? > > var bb = new BlobBuilder(); > bb.append(data); > bb.append(moreData); > var b = bb.getBlob(); > > var b = new Blob(); > b = b.concat(data); > b = b.concat(moreData); Sure. Though you could also just do var b = new Blob(); b = new Blob([b, data]); b = new Blob([b, moreData]); I don't really have a strong preference for we should have .concat as well or not. Array and String both have a lot of redundant methods for concatenating and splitting data. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 02:55:05 UTC