Re: Is BlobBuilder needed?

var b = new Blob([foo, bar], { contentType: "text/plain" });

This is really nice looking and feeling. Options objects are definitely a win

/rw



On Oct 26, 2011 7:17 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: 

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

>> The new API is smaller and simpler. Less to implement and less for web

>> developers to understand. If it can meet all our use-cases without

>> significant performance problems, then it's a win and we should do it.

>>

>> For line-endings, you could have the Blob constructor also take an optional

>> endings argument:

>> new Blob(String|Array|Blob|ArrayBuffer data, [optional] String contentType,

>> [optional] String endings);

>

> I believe (or at least, I maintain) that we're trying to do

> dictionaries for this sort of thing.  Multiple optional arguments are

> *horrible* unless they are truly, actually, order-dependent such that

> you wouldn't ever specify a later one without already specifying a

> former one.



I don't have a super strong opinion. I will however note that I think

it'll be very common to specify a content-type, but much much more

rare to specify any of the other types. But maybe using the syntax



b = new Blob([foo, bar], { contentType: "text/plain" })


Thi


isn't too bad. The other properties that I could think of that we'd

want to add sometime in the future would be encoding for strings,

including endianness for utf16 strings.



/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 23:45:02 UTC