So in summary.... make toURL() return the same thing that toNativeURL() does now. do nothing to toNativeURL() maybe later add a toCdvURL()
If thats correct, then +1 On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org > > >wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org > > >> >wrote: > > >> > This is ugly, though, and is going to get worse over time, and > become > > a > > >> > division between Cordova and any platforms which actually implement > > the > > >> > File API correctly. I'd like to propose switching the behaviour of > > >> > .toURL(), to match .toNativeURL -- returning a webview-usable URL by > > >> > default -- and implementing some other method or property to get the > > CDV > > >> > URL when it's necessary. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Everything you've said sounds like its all upside to make the switch. > > So > > >> I'm curious, when would CDV URL be necessary/useful over file/content > > >> urls? > > >> > > > > > > cdvfile:// URLs would still be necessary when dealing with files that > > just > > > don't *have* an alternate representation. There currently aren't any of > > > those, but we could implement virtual file systems entirely inside of a > > > plugin, and those would require a cdvfile:// URL to be read. > > > > > > I think we'd recommend them when saving URLs to persistent storage, if > > > there is any chance that the actual files could be moved / migrated, > and > > we > > > could hide that from the user by giving them a more abstract identifier > > > than one which specifies a physical location. > > > cdvfile://localhost/persistent/my/file.txt might be more durable over > > time > > > than file:///data/data/com.company.package/files/my/file.txt, perhaps > > > across OS upgrades. > > > > > > > Actually, forget all of that. > > > > Your question had me looking for reasons to advocate users using > cdvfile:// > > URLs, when perhaps none exist. The truth of the matter is this: The > cdvfile > > URL has two parts: the filesystem name, and the full path. Those two > parts > > form a consistent internal representation for all of the types of file > that > > the plugin can handle, and so all of the internal / native bits of the > file > > plugin use them almost exclusively. We make sure that every FileEntry and > > DirectoryEntry has those parts, and we only need to turn them into a URL > > for passing them across the bridge. > > > > One day someone may discover a great reason to use deliberately use > cdvfile > > URLs at the application level; until then, they're available, and we can > > continue to use them internally to simplify the plugin code, enforce the > > sandboxing, and make everything generally more consistent and efficient, > > and users shouldn't need to know or care what the URLs in use actually > are. > > > > I agree with this as long as the URLs are useable in the WebView (as src > attributes for example). If they're not, I also suggest that we return URLs > that are useable (file:///, content:/// or whatever) by default. > > As for filesystems (temp or persistent), I think most developers will use > whatever the default is. BUT they should be able to specify where they want > to store their data if they feel like it without using a third-party > plugin. > > > > > > Ian > > >
