- From: Eric U <ericu@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:41:26 -0700
- To: Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jian Li <jianli@google.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Satoru Takabayashi <satorux@google.com>, Toni Barzic <tbarzic@google.com>
Agreed. On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com> wrote: > > On May 23, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Just to make sure, I assume 'the underlying storage' includes memory. > > > Right. For simple Blobs without a mutable backing store, all of this > essentially optimizes away. > >> We should also make it clear whether .size and .lastModifiedDate should >> return live state or should just returning the same constant values. (I >> assume the latter) > > > It would be the values at the time of the snapshot state. (I doubt it was > ever actually intended that lastModifiedDate always return the file's latest > mtime. We'll find out when one of the editors gets around to this > thread...) > > > I think the ideal behavior is that it reflects values at snapshot state, but > that reads if snapshot state has modified fail. > > -- A*
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 22:42:09 UTC