Re: Files on IndexedDB

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree, it makes sense, only that I have read contradictory info
> regarding to actual implementations. Maybe they are doing hard links
> instead plain copies, and that's the source of the confusion? This
> would be acceptable, although not all OSes or filesystems can do
> that...
>

Sorry, I don't know about Chrome's current behavior.  This would be pretty
easy to test; look at the link count on the file.  (I'd be surprised if
they were using hard links.)

Then Chrome is taking REALLY liberally the interpretation, because on
> some tests I removed the file and instead of raising an error it just
> gave me an empty content and null modifiedTime and lenght...
>

That sounds more like a simple bug/incomplete implementation than a liberal
interpretation.  If lastModifiedDate or length are null, that's definitely
a bug (neither one is nullable).

Yep :-) So, what other solution would be feasable? Both behaviours
> (inmutable and live files) seems to be valid for some use cases...
>

File objects aren't appropriate for live file updates, as Sicking said
elsewhere.  (If I had a nicer solution I'd have proposed it already...)

-- 
Glenn Maynard