I'm in the process of converting the bb10 file plugin to use the exec proxy rather than clobbering common js. Once that's done, I'll take a look at adding some additional file system roots.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org>wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Bryan Higgins <br...@bryanhiggins.net > >wrote: > > > +1 to replacing toURL with toNativeURL behaviour > > > > I think that's what I'll do. I'm also adding a "toInternalURL" method -- > not because it's necessarily useful for end users, but because we can use > it as the single method to construct URLs for transport across the bridge. > > > > For accessing the root file system, what I'd personally like is a ROOT > > filesystem type for requestFileSystem. If the file-system-roots plugin > > provides that I think we should definitely pull it in. > > > > It does provide that; although I haven't enabled it by default. I've been > pretty wary of allowing JavaScript to arbitrarily access *everything* on > the entire device that is permitted by the OS. > > > > > > For the camera and media plugins on BB10 we return a full path relative > to > > the file system root as the native apps save into default locations. I > > wonder if there is an opportunity to add additional roots which map to > > default locations for pictures, music and video (maybe also documents?). > It > > seems like that would be super useful for media player apps or > downloaders. > > > > That's the whole point of the file-system-roots plugin -- on Android, it > adds things like sdcard, external cache, external persistent files, > documetns, etc. On iOS, it gives library, documents, cache, bundle, and a > couple of non-icloud-synced versions of them. I'd love to get a set of > useful BlackBerry file system roots as well. > > Ian > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
