SOLD to the bearded french dude! Seriously though, this sounds great.
/ Jonas On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Robin Berjon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > thanks a lot for this useful and frank conversation. Based on this input and > stuff I've been ruminating over, I'd like to propose the following > arrangement (in detail, so bear with me for stating some parts that may be > obvious). > > • File/FileReader stays in WebApps. It defines all that you need to get data > out of a File object and a way of getting hold of one of those through an > HTML binding. > > • File Writer moves to WebApps. It defines all that you need to write data to > a File (or Blob). It will also define a way to safely get that data saved, > for instance through a download dialog. > > • File Directories and System moves to WebApps. It defines all that you need > to frolic around a file system, exploring directories, creating and deleting > entries, etc. It also defines access to a local sandboxed file system. One > thing that it loses in the transfer is the DeviceFilesystem interface. > > • A new "Trusted File System Access" specification is produced in DAP that > inherits the current DeviceFilesystem interface. > > A word on this new "Trusted" thingie. There are two goals that we have here: > design wicked cool APIs that work in browsers, and design wicked cool APIs > that can't work in browsers. The latter are expected to be used for > installable apps (widgets, browser extensions, browser-powered apps, mobile > apps) or other such situations in which a trust relationship — a situation > that is becoming increasingly commonplace and where some interoperability is > badly needed (at least on some basic things — e.g. we don't need each browser > extension system to have its own separate file API — innovation can and > should proceed apace on the more advanced stuff). > > Instead of trying to cram both aspects into the same specification, we use > two, with a layered model that has the "Trusted" side add access paths. I > know that some people have claimed that it would be impossible to produce > web-safe APIs that could also be further opened up. I submit that the File > family of APIs has shown them to be wrong: all that the trusted level > requires is a single interface with all of two methods. > > This is a pattern that I can see being rather straightforward to apply to > Capture (as a more formalised way of expressing previous "separation into > levels" discussions), Contacts, Calendar... And if we do find a case in which > it doesn't work, we'll cross that bridge then. > > WDYT? > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ > > > > >
