Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Chris Prince
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Aaron Boodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak > > > Open question: can a File be stored in a SQL database? If > > so, does the database store the data or a reference (such as a path or Mac > > OS X Alias)? > > The

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Aaron Boodman
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak >> It seems better if the read API is just async for this case to prevent >> the problem. > > It can't entirely prevent the problem. If you read a big enough chunk, it > will cause swapping which hits the disk just as much as file reads. Possibly

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On May 11, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, that depends on how good the OS buffer cache is at prefetching. But in general, there would be some disk access. It seems better if the read API is just a

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Aaron Boodman
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, that depends on how good the OS buffer cache is at prefetching. But in > general, there would be some disk access. It seems better if the read API is just async for this case to prevent the problem. >> I see wh

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On May 11, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's one additional question on how this would work with ByteArray. The read API for ByteArray is currently synchronous. Doesn't this mean that with large fil

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Aaron Boodman
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here's one additional question on how this would work with ByteArray. >> The read API for ByteArray is currently synchronous. Doesn't this mean >> that with large files accessing bytearray[n] could block? > > If the B

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On May 11, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Both of these can be addressed by the APIs (including the worker transfer mechanism) making a copy, which can use a copy-on-write mechanism to avoid actually ma

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Aaron Boodman
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Both of these can be addressed by the APIs (including the worker transfer > mechanism) making a copy, which can use a copy-on-write mechanism to avoid > actually making a copy in the common case. Ok, so just so I'm cl

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On May 10, 2008, at 11:39 PM, Chris Prince 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. The only explanation is: "The primary difference is that Blobs are immutable*, and can therefo

[July 1-3] [face to face] Agenda?

2008-05-11 Thread Jean-Yves Bitterlich
Hello, I understood that prio 1 item on the july 1st-3rd agenda is going to be XHR2 (XDR... input). What other items are (known to be) on the agenda ? (probably 3 days are anyway just enough to finalize XHR) regards, -jy

Re: Blobs: An alternate (complementary?) binary data proposal (Was: File IO...)

2008-05-11 Thread Chris Prince
Responses to several of the comments so far: On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I like the way that the bytes are made accessible, but > that's a minor detail really. I tend to agree. The 'Creating Blobs' section and the readAs*() methods were

RE: IE Team's Proposal for Cross Site Requests

2008-05-11 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Sunava will deliver [all the objections we have had] in a concise form. > From the comments in various responses in this topic, it is clear that > expectations are extremely high for the level of detail in those > objections; that takes much time to pr