31, 2014 11:19 AM
To: Ali Alabbas
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: flush() | was Re: FileSystem API Comments
Greetings Ali!
I've been thinking about the discussion of flush(), and would like to see if I
can make my previous statement a bit more nuanced. It turns out that flush
Greetings Ali!
I’ve been thinking about the discussion of flush(), and would like to see if I
can make my previous statement a bit more nuanced. It turns out that flush()
(in the vein of fsync/sync) is pretty useful, and after discussion with a few
folks within Mozilla, I realize that it isn’t
On Tue Oct 21 09:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
1.1 Use cases (3. Audio/Photo editor with offline access or local
cache for
speed)
* Edited files should be accessible by other client-side
applications
- Having the sandboxed file system share its contents between all
apps
I don't see a contradiction.
Each *web* app sees only files accessible from its domain (so your two
apps have distinct pic.jpeg).
Each *native* app has access to whatever the operating system says.
Or am I missing something in your message?
Cheers,
David
On 22/10/14 12:23, Jonathan Bond-Caron
22.10.2014, 12:32, David Rajchenbach-Teller dtel...@mozilla.com:
I don't see a contradiction.
Each *web* app sees only files accessible from its domain (so your two
apps have distinct pic.jpeg).
Each *native* app has access to whatever the operating system says.
There are a lot of use cases
Ali,
First, thanks for your timely comments :) I’m in the process of editing the
FileSystem API.
Responses inline:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Ali Alabbas a...@microsoft.com wrote:
1.1 Use cases (3. Audio/Photo editor with offline access or local cache for
speed)
* Edited files
On 10/21/14 4:36 PM, Ali Alabbas wrote:
Hello,
I'm with the IE Platform team at Microsoft. We have a few comments on
the latest editor's draft of the newly proposed FileSystem API [1].
I believe [1] is Arun's http://w3c.github.io/filesystem-api/Overview.html.
1.1 Use cases (3.
