W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Overlap between StreamReader and FileReader

From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:15:35 +0200
Message-ID: <523220E7.5040109@gmail.com>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
CC: Isaac Schlueter <i@izs.me>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Isaac said too "So, just to be clear, I'm *not* suggesting that browser 
streams copy Node streams verbatim.".

Unless you want to do node inside browsers (which would be great but 
seems unlikely) I still don't see the relation between this kind of 
proposal and existing APIs.

Could you please give an example very different from the ones I gave 
already?

WebCrypto seems to be waiting for a Streams interface to be able to 
perform simple progressive operations, which have been (unexpectedly) 
removed from the spec, with outstanding features like the stream itself 
being able to predict its end... I don't think it's required and even 
possible, streams inside browsers only need to handle delta data, the 
rest being handled by the APIs using the streams (including end of the 
stream, flow control & co), cf my simple proposal.

You have reverted to EventTarget too instead of promises, why?

Regards

Aymeric

Le 12/09/2013 20:36, Takeshi Yoshino a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Aymeric Vitte 
> <vitteaymeric@gmail.com <mailto:vitteaymeric@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Apparently we are not talking about the same thing, while I am
>     thinking to a high level interface your interface is taking care
>     of the underlying level.
>
>
> How much low level stuff to expose would basically affect high level 
> interface design, I think.
>
>     Like node's streams, node had to define it since it was not
>     existing (but is someone using node's streams as such or does
>     everybody use
>
> ...snip...
>
>     So, to understand where the mismatch comes from, could you please
>     highlight a web use case/code example based on your proposal?
>
>
> I'm still thinking how much we should include in the API, too. This 
> proposal is just a trial to address the requirements Isaac listed. So, 
> each feature should correspond to some of his example code.

-- 
jCore
Email :  avitte@jcore.fr
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Web :    www.jcore.fr
Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com
BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 20:16:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:13 UTC