Closed Bug 527370 Opened 16 years ago Closed 16 years ago

Rename objects/properties to match File API spec

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect, P2)

defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla1.9.2
Tracking Status
status1.9.2 --- beta4-fixed

People

(Reporter: sicking, Assigned: sicking)

References

Details

(Keywords: dev-doc-complete)

Attachments

(2 files, 1 obsolete file)

Attached patch Patch to fixSplinter Review
There are two naming differences between our file api implementation and the latest spec drafts: The FileRequest object in our implementation is called FileReader in the spec, and the .response property is called .result. The attached patch fixes both of these. I should note that there should be no cause for concern that the spec will change significantly any further. We knew that these names might change when we did the initial landing, and since these names have been proposed to the WG, no dissenting feedback has been received. The controversial parts of the spec are parts that we don't yet implement (intentionally). Note, I didn't change the iid for the interface since it's binary compatible with the old interface. Don't know if this qualifies as an interface change or not, but I asked for sr just in case.
Flags: blocking1.9.2?
Attachment #411091 - Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #411091 - Flags: review?(Olli.Pettay)
Comment on attachment 411091 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to fix On second thought, sr seems excessive for something that is a search'n'replace patch.
Attachment #411091 - Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #411091 - Flags: review?(Olli.Pettay) → review+
Comment on attachment 411091 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to fix Do we want this change to 1.9.2? Then sr would be good.
(In reply to comment #0) > Note, I didn't change the iid for the interface since it's binary compatible > with the old interface. I don't understand this. You do change the interface name and its iid. And what is binary compatible with what?
Comment on attachment 411091 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to fix sr=jst, and yeah, the IID did change. I'm fine either way though, since the new interface is binary compatible with the old one in this case.
Attachment #411091 - Flags: superreview+
Hrm.. I guess I forgot to rediff after revierting the iid change. Though it doesn't make much of a practical difference because the contract and CID changed, so binary compat is broken there anyway. So I'll keep the iid change since that's what got reviewed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Let's get this in for 1.9.2 so developers don't need to fight this any longer than necessary.
Flags: blocking1.9.2? → blocking1.9.2+
Priority: -- → P2
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.2
Attachment #411091 - Flags: approval1.9.2?
Jonas, can you land this on 1.9.2 asap?
Assignee: nobody → jonas
Fix error in test
Attachment #412743 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #412744 - Flags: review?(jst)
Attachment #412743 - Flags: review?(jst)
Attachment #412744 - Flags: review?(jst) → review+
Is there a bug for remaining differences between our implementation and the spec? For instance, our implementation of FileException has totally different values than the spec's.
For FileException: Bug 530212 For FileError: Bug 530210
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: