On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
Apologies for the slow response. I wanted to go back and reread the
relevant specs before I said anything more. Having done so, I found
that XHR and FileReader were more similar than I had remembered.
However, I believe I
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Yes, we could live with it but the semantics are more complex. Is this the
same as calling abort() then readAsXXX()?
Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Yes, we could live with it but the semantics are more complex. Is this the
On Monday, April 18, 2011 12:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is basically:
readAsX(...) {
if (requestInProgress)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2011 12:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Yes. I.e. the
On 4/18/11 3:55 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2011 12:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Adrian Batemanadria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is basically:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
FileReader is extremely similar to XMLHttpRequest. The main difference
is in how you initiate the request (.open/.send vs. .readAsX). This
similarity is even getting stronger now that XHR gets .result.
So I think there are good
On 4/15/11 2:57 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
FileReader is extremely similar to XMLHttpRequest. The main difference
is in how you initiate the request (.open/.send vs. .readAsX). This
similarity is even getting stronger now that XHR gets
On Friday, April 15, 2011 12:16 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 4/15/11 2:57 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
With this in mind, I don't personally have a strong feeling either way
between having to call abort() explicitly or having readAsXXX implicitly
call abort(). I've discussed it with others
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2011 12:16 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 4/15/11 2:57 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
With this in mind, I don't personally have a strong feeling either way
between having to call abort()
On 4/11/11 1:39 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathana...@mozilla.com wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an additional
burden on the developer (to catch, for example).
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 4/11/11 1:39 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathana...@mozilla.com
wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an additional
burden on
On 3/31/11 6:12 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Adrian Batemanadria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:19 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 3/30/11 2:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Adrian Batemanadria...@microsoft.com
On Monday, April 11, 2011 8:28 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 3/31/11 6:12 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
I think it's cleaner and simpler just to throw. FileReader and XHR
are already different enough that a bit more, as long as it's a
usability improvement, isn't a big deal. The efficiency
On 4/11/11 12:05 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 8:28 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 3/31/11 6:12 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
I think it's cleaner and simpler just to throw. FileReader and XHR
are already different enough that a bit more, as long as it's a
usability
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an additional
burden on the developer (to catch, for example).
Only if the developer is trying to catch all exceptions, which you usually
don't. Most
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 8:28 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 3/31/11 6:12 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
I think it's cleaner and simpler just to throw. FileReader and XHR
are already different enough that a bit more,
On 4/11/11 1:04 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com
mailto:a...@mozilla.com wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an
additional burden on the developer (to catch, for example).
Only if the developer
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On the main thread, with your proposal, all reads will stop since an
exception has been raised.
That's odd--why would that happen? Normally one expects an API call that
throws an exception to have no effect. It'd
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an additional
burden on the developer (to catch, for example).
I don't think so. I think that calling
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:19 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 3/30/11 2:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Adrian Batemanadria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Is there a reason for the current spec text?
I don't know the original rationale, but in the absence of any
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:19 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 3/30/11 2:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Adrian Batemanadria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Is there a reason for the current
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
As we continue to experiment with the File API, I'm trying to understand the
rationale for the Multiple Reads section:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#MultipleReads
The spec says:
If multiple read methods
As we continue to experiment with the File API, I'm trying to understand the
rationale for the Multiple Reads section:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#MultipleReads
The spec says:
If multiple read methods are called on the same FileReader object, user
agents MUST only process the
25 matches
Mail list logo
