- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:21:24 -0700
2009/8/27 Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com> > > > 2009/8/27 Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> > >> 2009/8/27 Ian Fette (????????) <ifette at google.com>: >> >> > I would much rather have a well thought-out local filesystem proposal, >> than >> > continued creep of the existing File and Local Storage proposal. These >> > proposals are both designed from the perspective of "I want to take some >> > existing data and either put it into the cloud or make it available >> > offline". They don't really handle the use case of "I want to create new >> > data and save it to the local filesystem", or "I want to modify existing >> > data on the filesystem", or "I want to maintain a virtual filesystem for >> my >> > application, and potentially map in the existing filesystem" (e.g. if >> I'm >> > flickr and I want to be able to read the user's "My Photos" folder, send >> > those up, but also make thumbnails that I want to save locally and don't >> > care if they get uploaded, maintain an index file with image metadata / >> > thumbnails / ... locally, save off some intermediate files, ... >> > For this, I would really like to see us take another look >> > at http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/fileio/fileIO.htm (I don't think this >> spec >> > is exactly what we need, but I like the general approach of "origins get >> a >> > virtual filesystem tucked away that they can use, they can >> > fread/fwrite/fseek, and optionally if they want to interact with the >> host FS >> > they can request that and then get some sub-set of that (e.g. "my >> documents" >> > or "my photos") mapped in. >> > -Ian >> >> If we added the ability to create File objects, which could then be >> stored in localStorage (and WebSQL or whatever will replace it), then >> wouldn't we basically have the functionality you seek? >> >> What's the difference between sticking a File in the "foo/bar/bin" >> property on the localStorage object, vs. sicking a File object in the >> "foo/bar/bin" directory in some FileSystem object? >> >> > +1 the call to add a file system like api to the storage mix > > Enumerating the contents of a 'directory' is one difference. Recursively > deleting a 'directory' is another. Checking creation/modification timestamps > is a third. The LocalStorage big-hashmap model doesn't work well for these > things in its current form. The hierarchical file system abstraction is well > understand and has a long track record of usefulness. > Drive by comment: I'm not saying that it'd be a replacement for a better file system API, but it might be nice to add "range" iteration to LocalStorage. Of course, in order to do that, it'd need to be stored in a tree rather than a hash table. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090827/505c1f6b/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 17:21:24 UTC