Re: Lazy Blob

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Aug 1, 2012, at 22:13 , Glenn Adams wrote:
> > The subject line says Lazy Blob, not Lazy Blob and XHR. For the record,
> I will object to a LazyBlob solution that is tied solely to XHR, so deal
> with it now rather than later.
>
> Objections need to be built on something — just objecting for the fun of
> it does not carry some weight. Up to this point, you have provided no real
> world use case that requires the feature you propose and your sole
> justification for the whole subthread is that you don't like the idea.
>

Are you saying I am objecting for the fun of it? Where did I say I don't
like the idea? You'd best reread my messages.


>
> As far as I'm concerned, barring the introduction of better arguments the
> objection is dealt with hic et nunc.
>

No it hasn't. If you want a real world use case it is this: my
architectural constraints as an author for some particular usage requires
that I use WS rather than XHR. I wish to have support for the construct
being discussed with WS. How is that not a real world requirement?