On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@opera.com>wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:22:45 +0200, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Another idea (possibly a crazy one) would be to eliminate Blob, and just >> use File for everything. We could rename BlobBuilder to FileBuilder and >> have it return a File instead of a Blob. Same goes for Blob.slice(). Of >> course, >> the File would not necessarily correspond to a real physical file on disk >> for performance reasons. >> > > Not having Blob at all works for me! > > > I gave this some more thought. Here's some issues I came up with: 1) BlobBuilder -> FileBuilder This renaming seems to suggest the creation of a file, which is not the intent at all. 2) XHR.{asBlob,responseBlob} -> XHR.{asFile,responseFile} This renaming seems to suggest the creation of a file, which is not necessary for small responses. 3) Combine Blob and File into a single File interface This merging has the unfortunate side-effect of introducing a "name" property for the result of a File.slice() operation. It also means that the result of FileBuilder and XHR.responseFile would have a name. Considering the above, it seems like there is a place for Blob (or something like it). I can see Jonas' points about BlobReader vs. FileReader, and so I'm happy to backpedal and go with FileReader, FileException, and FileError, keeping Blob for cases where we don't promise a file. -Darin