On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
You can always call close() yourself, but Blob.close() should use the
neuter mechanism already there, not make up a new one.
Blobs aren't
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
You can always call close() yourself, but Blob.close() should use the
neuter
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
You can always call close() yourself, but Blob.close() should use the
neuter
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Greg Billock gbill...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/5/2012 5:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM,
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
You
On 3/7/12 12:34 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russellk...@google.com wrote:
I believe that we should fix the immediate problem and add a close()
method to Blob. I'm not in favor of
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/7/12 12:34 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Kenneth Russellk...@google.com wrote:
I believe that we should fix the
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/5/2012 5:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Do you see old behavior working something like the following?
var blob = new Blob(my new big blob);
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Greg Billock gbill...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/5/2012 5:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Do you see old behavior working
Ken,
I'm not sure that adding close() to Transferable is a good idea. Not
all Transferable types may want to support that explicit operation.
What about adding close() to Blob, and having the neutering operation
on Blob be defined to call close() on it?
Specifically, you think this is not
Sounds like there's a good case for an explicit blob.close() method
independent of 'transferable'. Separately defining blobs to be
transferrable feels like an unneeded complexity. A caller wishing to
neuter after sending can explicit call .close() rather than relying on
more obscure artifacts of
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
A change like this would be feasible as long as it doesn't break
compatibility. In other words, the current Transferable array would
still need to be supported, but Transferable instances (or perhaps
instances of some other
Separately defining blobs to be transferrable feels like an unneeded
complexity. A caller wishing to
neuter after sending can explicit call .close() rather than relying on
more obscure artifacts of having also put the 'blob' in a
'transferrable' array.
You can always call close() yourself,
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
Ken,
I'm not sure that adding close() to Transferable is a good idea. Not
all Transferable types may want to support that explicit operation.
What about adding close() to Blob, and having the neutering operation
On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
Ken,
I'm not sure that adding close() to Transferable is a good idea. Not
all Transferable types may want to support that explicit operation.
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:aranganat...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:32 PM
To: Kenneth Russell
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; Charles Pritchard; Glenn Maynard; Feras
Moussa; Adrian Bateman; Greg Billock
Subject: Re: Transferable and structured
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
You can always call close() yourself, but Blob.close() should use the
neuter mechanism already there, not make up a new one.
Blobs aren't transferable, there is no existing mechanism that applies
to them. Adding a
On 3/5/2012 5:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Do you see old behavior working something like the following?
var blob = new Blob(my new big blob);
var keepBlob = blob.slice();
18 matches
Mail list logo
