- From: Feras Moussa <feras.moussa@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:41:52 -0800
- To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
> Streams instantiations somewhere make me think to the structured clone > algorithm, as I proposed before there should be a method like a > createStream so you just need to say for a given API that it supports > this method and you don't have to modify the API except for specific > cases (xhr,ws,etc), like for the structured clone algo, and this is missing. This is an interesting idea. But I'm not entirely clear on your proposal. Is [1] where you mentioned it, or is there another thread I've missed? You're not proposing changing the stream constructor, but rather also defining a generic way an API can add support for stream by implementing a strongly-defined createStream method? Is your thinking to have this in order to give users a consistent way to obtain a stream from various APIs? On first thought I like the idea, but I think once we settle on a definition of 'Stream', we can asses what is really required for other APIs to begin supporting it. If so, I can create a bug to track this concept. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0246.html ---------------------------------------- > Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:16:12 +0100 > From: vitteaymeric@gmail.com > To: art.barstow@nokia.com > CC: public-webapps@w3.org > Subject: Re: CfC: publish WD of Streams API; deadline Nov 3 > > Yes, with good results, groups are throwing the ball to others... I > don't know right now all the groups that might need to be involved, > that's the reason of my question. > > 4 days out without internet connection, usually one email every two > weeks on the subject and suddendly tons of emails, looks like a > conspiracy... > > I will reread the threads (still perplex about some issues, a txt stream > is a binary stream that should be piped to textEncoder/Decoder from my > standpoint, making it a special case just complicates everything, maybe > it's too late to revert this) but it looks like the consensus is to wait > for Domenic's proposal, OK but as I mentioned he missed some points in > the current proposal and it's interesting to read carefully the Overlap > thread, and I find it important to have a simple way to handle > ArrayBuffer, View, Blob without converting all the time. > > Streams instantiations somewhere make me think to the structured clone > algorithm, as I proposed before there should be a method like a > createStream so you just need to say for a given API that it supports > this method and you don't have to modify the API except for specific > cases (xhr,ws,etc), like for the structured clone algo, and this is missing. > > Regards > > Aymeric > > Le 03/11/2013 19:02, Arthur Barstow a écrit : >> Hi Aymeric, >> >> On 10/29/13 7:22 AM, ext Aymeric Vitte wrote: >>> Who is coordinating each group that should get involved? >> >> I thought you agreed to do that ;). >> >>> MediaStream for example should be based on the Stream interface and >>> all related streams proposals. >> >> More seriously though, this is good to know, and if there is >> additional coordination that needs to be done, please let us know. >> >> -Thanks, ArtB >> >> > > -- > Peersm : http://www.peersm.com > node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor > GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms > >
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2013 23:42:20 UTC