On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Aymeric Vitte <[email protected]>wrote:
> > My understanding is that the flow control APIs like mine are intended to > be used by JS code implementing some converter, consumer, etc. while > built-in stuff like WebCrypt would be evolved to accept Stream directly and > handle flow control in e.g. C++ world. > > > ---- > > BTW, I'm discussing this to provide data points to decide whether to > include flow control API or not. I'm not pushing it. I appreciate if other > participants express opinions about this. > > > > Not sure to get what you mean between your API flow control and built-in > flow control... I think the main purpose of the Stream API should be to > handle more efficiently streaming without having to handle ArrayBuffers > copy, split, concat, etc, to abstract the use of ArrayBuffer, > ArrayBufferView, Blob, txt so you don't spend your time converting things > and to connect simply different streams. > JS flow control API is for JS code to manually control threshold, buffer size, etc. so that JS code can consume, produce data to/from Stream. Built-in flow control is C++ (or any other lang implementing the UA) interface that will be used when streams are connected with pipe(). Maybe it would have similar interface as JS flow control API.
