On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:40:44 +0200, Chris Prince [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
Open question: can a File be stored in a SQL database? If
so, does the database store
On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:10:57 +0200, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I'm not really clear on why Blobs must be distinct from ByteArrays.
As I read it, the Blob proposal also explicitly ties in a bit of
On May 13, 2008, at 5:08 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:10:57 +0200, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
... I'm not really clear on why Blobs must be distinct from
ByteArrays.
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 5:08 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
(I suspect that if we are still relying on a thing called 'blob'
because we still don't have real file system access with some sense of
security by the time we want to hand around
Responses to several of the comments so far:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I like the way that the bytes are made accessible, but
that's a minor detail really.
I tend to agree. The 'Creating Blobs' section and the readAs*()
methods were
On May 10, 2008, at 11:39 PM, Chris Prince wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm not really clear on why Blobs must be distinct from ByteArrays.
The only explanation is: The primary difference is that Blobs are
immutable*, and can therefore
On May 11, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Both of these can be addressed by the APIs (including the worker
transfer
mechanism) making a copy, which can use a copy-on-write mechanism
to avoid
actually
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's one additional question on how this would work with ByteArray.
The read API for ByteArray is currently synchronous. Doesn't this mean
that with large files accessing bytearray[n] could block?
If the ByteArray
On May 11, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here's one additional question on how this would work with
ByteArray.
The read API for ByteArray is currently synchronous. Doesn't this
mean
that with large
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that depends on how good the OS buffer cache is at prefetching. But in
general, there would be some disk access.
It seems better if the read API is just async for this case to prevent
the problem.
I see what
On May 11, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, that depends on how good the OS buffer cache is at
prefetching. But in
general, there would be some disk access.
It seems better if the read API is just
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
It seems better if the read API is just async for this case to prevent
the problem.
It can't entirely prevent the problem. If you read a big enough chunk, it
will cause swapping which hits the disk just as much as file reads. Possibly
more,
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
Open question: can a File be stored in a SQL database? If
so, does the database store the data or a reference (such as a path or Mac
OS X Alias)?
There
On May 7, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Hi everyone,
Opera has a proposal for a specification that would revive (and
supersede)
the file upload API that has been lingering so long as a work item.
The Gears team has also been putting together a proposal for file
access which
On Sat, 10 May 2008 06:15:01 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Aaron Boodman wrote:
The Gears team has also been putting together a proposal for file access
which overlaps in some ways with Opera's, but is also orthogonal in some
ways:
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Do we have the resources to have someone champion this spec?
Are you asking the WG, or Google?
The Web community as a whole. I don't care which working group (if any)
owns it, and I don't have any reason to prefer that Google work on
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really like the idea of adding consistent APIs for binary data in the many
places in the Web platform that need them. However, I'm not really clear on
why Blobs must be distinct from ByteArrays. The only explanation
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Charles wrote:
Opera has a proposal for a specification that would revive (and
supersede) the file upload API that has been lingering so long as a
work item.
I would echo the other comments people have made regarding the security
model being the
18 matches
Mail list logo
