What happens after 98? Is it going live? On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 4:13:11 AM UTC-4 Thomas Steiner wrote:
> FYI: updated our documentation accordingly (PR > <https://github.com/GoogleChrome/web.dev/pull/6241>). > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:40 PM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> LGTM to experiment M95-M98 >> >> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 9:40:41 AM UTC+2 Emanuel Krivoy wrote: >> >>> Contact emails >>> >>> five...@chromium.org, rs...@chromium.org >>> >>> Explainer >>> >>> https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/blob/main/AccessHandle.md >>> >>> Specification >>> >>> Work in progress. See explainer for WebIDL definition. >>> >>> Summary >>> >>> The Origin Private File System (OPFS, part of the File System Access >>> API) is augmented with a new surface that brings very performant access to >>> data. This new surface differs from existing ones by offering in-place and >>> exclusive write access to a file’s content. This change, along with the >>> ability to consistently read unflushed modifications and the availability >>> of a synchronous variant on dedicated workers, significantly improves >>> performance and unblocks new use cases (especially for porting existing >>> IO-heavy applications to WebAssembly). >>> >>> This Intent-to-Experiment is only in reference to the sync variant of >>> the API i.e., the createSyncAccessHandle() method and the >>> SyncAccessHandle object (only exposed in worker contexts): >>> >>> const handle = await file.createSyncAccessHandle(); >>> >>> var writtenBytes = handle.write(buffer); >>> >>> var readBytes = handle.read(buffer {at: 1}); >>> >>> The sync variant is meant to be consumed by low-level entities like >>> toolchains. We expect application developers to prefer the async API with >>> its streaming interface which will be shipped later. >>> >>> AccessHandles is the new API shape for what was previously called >>> Storage Foundation API (Intent-to-Experiment: >>> http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Jhirhnq3WbY). >>> >>> Blink component >>> >>> Blink>Storage>FileSystem >>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EStorage%3EFileSystem> >>> >>> TAG review >>> >>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/664 >>> >>> TAG review status >>> >>> Preliminary positive feedback, pending closure after plenary session. >>> >>> Risks >>> >>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>> >>> The feature has to be compatible with existing ways to access data on >>> OPFS i.e., createWritable() and getFile(). The use of write locks and >>> care for backwards compatibility should mean that the risk here is low. In >>> order to ease compatibility concerns in the future, we've added an optional >>> 'mode' parameter to createAccessHandle()/createSyncAccessHandle(). This >>> allows us to eventually extend AccessHandle functionality to non-OPFS >>> file systems without necessarily taking the OPFS behaviour as default (more >>> details here: >>> https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/blob/main/AccessHandle.md#exposing-accesshandles-on-all-filesystems >>> ). >>> >>> There is a risk of interoperability between vendors, pending the >>> position on implementing this surface. This design is the result of >>> feedback from Gecko and WebKit, who reviewed previous iterations of this >>> functionality and gave feedback that it should integrate more strongly with >>> OPFS. We directly shared documents outlining alternatives considered >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/121OZpRk7bKSF7qU3kQLqAEUVSNxqREnE98malHYwWec>, >>> >>> and later our recommendation >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g7ZCqZ5NdiU7oqyCpsc2iZ7rRAY1ZXO-9VoG4LfP7fM> >>> >>> towards this particular API shape. >>> >>> We believe that the new design, when paired with a separate >>> streams-based extension to OPFS, meets the goal of more strongly >>> integrating with the existing surface. However, we have not yet received >>> replies to the position requests below. >>> >>> Gecko: No formal signal, but generally positive reception with questions >>> about supporting existing surfaces ( >>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/562) >>> >>> WebKit: No signal ( >>> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2021-August/031934.html) >>> >>> Web developers: Positive >>> >>> From our Storage Foundation OT, we received very positive feedback on >>> the need for high performance storage, as well as on the general shape of >>> the API: >>> >>> >>> - >>> >>> Adobe’s support statement (about the need for the capability) >>> <https://github.com/WICG/proposals/issues/10#issuecomment-804145429> >>> - >>> >>> absurd-sql’s mention >>> >>> <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/481#issuecomment-898061119> >>> - >>> >>> Reception on Twitter after DevRel announcement >>> <https://twitter.com/ChromiumDev/status/1405101909757902851> >>> >>> >>> SyncAccessHandles have a very similar shape to the surface that was >>> exposed in Storage Foundation’s Origin Trial. The current implementation in >>> Chrome is currently being tested by partners to confirm it is a good >>> replacement of Storage Foundation for their needs. >>> >>> Ergonomics >>> >>> As mentioned above, SyncAccessHandles offer a very similar surface to >>> the one positively received during Storage Foundation’s OT. The main >>> differences are the migration of file system operations into OPFS and the >>> asynchronicity of auxiliary methods (i.e. methods other than read and >>> write). >>> >>> Since many of our use cases require good interoperability between this >>> API and Wasm, we’ve developed an Emscripten file system >>> <https://github.com/rstz/emscripten-pthreadfs/tree/main/pthreadfs> that >>> allows ported applications to use SyncAccessHandles. This simplifies >>> both activation and use, since the API can be accessed through standard >>> C/C++ file system libraries. >>> >>> Security and Privacy >>> >>> SyncAccessHandles have received approval for Security and Privacy in >>> our launch bug >>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1232436>. >>> >>> Goals for experimentation >>> >>> In general, we want to validate the new surface against "real world" use >>> cases from our partners and developers at large. In particular, we are >>> interested in the relative usage between the sync and async methods, since >>> this could have an impact on performance when using Asyncify. We also would >>> like to receive qualitative feedback on the ease of use of the API from >>> within Wasm. >>> >>> Debuggability >>> >>> Basic tooling: Autocomplete works as described in "New WebIDL/DOM >>> interfaces and attributes". >>> >>> Extended tooling: we'll eventually want to be able to explore files >>> stored in OPFS. There are two tracking bugs related to this: >>> crbug.com/256067 and crbug.com/735618. This API doesn't really add new >>> storage backends, just new ways to interact with files, so we'd be covered >>> by those as well. >>> >>> File System Access API usage is also reflected in user settings pages >>> such as chrome://settings/siteData. >>> >>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>> ? >>> >>> Yes, we’ve added tests for all new functionality, as well as for the >>> intersection between this surface and existing parts of OPFS (in particular >>> for locking semantics). Our test suite is also run against our Incognito >>> mode implementation, since it is significantly different from the regular >>> mode one. >>> >>> wpt.fyi results: wpt.fyi/results/file-system-access >>> >>> Is this feature supported on all six Blink platforms? >>> >>> No. File System Access API is not currently available on Android or >>> Android WebView. >>> >>> DevTrial instructions >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/blob/main/AccessHandle.md#trying-it-out >>> >>> Flag name >>> >>> FileSystemAccessAccessHandle >>> >>> Requires code in //chrome? >>> >>> False >>> >>> Tracking bug >>> >>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1218431 >>> >>> Launch bug >>> >>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1232436 >>> >>> Estimated milestones >>> >>> Access Handles >>> >>> OriginTrial desktop last >>> >>> 98 >>> >>> OriginTrial desktop first >>> >>> 95 >>> >>> DevTrial on desktop >>> >>> 94 >>> >>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>> >>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5702777582911488 >>> >>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>> >>> Intent to prototype: >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/33T36N6VBKI >>> >>> Ready for Trial: >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_nB5VfgXW_I >>> >>> >>> This intent message was mostly generated by Chrome Platform Status >>> <https://www.chromestatus.com/>. >>> >>> > > -- > Thomas Steiner, PhD—Developer Advocate (https://blog.tomayac.com, > https://twitter.com/tomayac) > > Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg, Germany > Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.1.23 (GNU/Linux) > > > iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom. > hTtPs://xKcd.cOm/1181/ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0dee284d-4a8f-4c28-a01d-c3bc5c03c522n%40chromium.org.
