Thank you for all your great feedbacks.
Yes, the first approach is simpler and it requites far less work from the
author and thus less error prone. However, I think the second approach does
provide more flexibilities that might fit for the different data assembling
and sending purpose. The author can use it to upload multiple attached
files, save a set of client generated items, or even send any combinations
of string data and file data.
For example, the presentation web application wants to save a set of client
generated slides to the server. Some of slides include attached files, like
a video clip. It will be much easier for the author to send all the data to
the server via the second approach:
var payload = new Array;
payload.push(header_for_slide1);
payload.push(data_for_slide1);
payload.push(header_for_slide2);
payload.push(data_for_slide2);
payload.push(attached_file1_for_slide2);
payload.push(attached_file2_for_slide2);
...
xhr.send(payload);
Since XMLHttpRequest spec has already added the overload for send(document),
why not just adding more overload for file and array of items? IMHO, having
similar send*** methods, like sendFile, together with overloads of send()
might make the API more complicated.
2009/9/11 Yaar Schnitman <[email protected]>
>
>> How is supposed the web application to detect that the browser
>> supports this feature?
>>
>>
> Maybe instead of overloaded send, we should create new method
> sendFile(File) and sendFiles(File[]).
>
> And between the two approaches, the first one is simpler, but the
>> second one allows to send the files one each time and add other form
>> data in the request.
>>
>> Maybe sendFiles(File[], [Strings[]])?
>
>
