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 file
interaction (which is why it is related to the fileIO proposal).
The only explanation is: "The primary difference is that Blobs are
immutable*, and can therefore represent large objects." But I am not
sure why immutability is
necessary to have the ability to represent large objects.
Reading through the rest of the discussion, I don't think it is - in
general it would seem useful to have a ByteArray, IMHO.
...
I also notice that you used int64 in many of the APIs. JavaScript cannot
represent 64-bit integers in its number type. ...
I think our assumption is that 2^53 is large enough to represent the
length of all the blobs going in and out of web apps for the
forseeable future. We would just throw when we receive a number that
is larger than that saying that it is out of range. Is there a better
way to notate this in specs?
Well, you at least have to be pretty explicit about it I think. Better
would be to find a type that Javascript can do, though.
(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 a Terabyte in a web application, that we
will have seriously failed somewhere. Although it isn't impossible that we
end up there).
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
