669437 - Implement BlobBuilder.getFile

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

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

Description

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Attachment: Patch to fix

Bug summary is pretty self explanatory. getFile takes a filename and an optional content type.

Comment 1

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

Comment on attachment 544038 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch to fix

Review of attachment 544038 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

r=me with two things:

1. Change the right UUID
2. Add a test to ensure that sending a Blob through FormData and sending a Blob with an empty filename send the same data (this should be the case, right?)

::: content/base/public/nsIDOMFile.idl
@@ +62,5 @@
>                                        [optional] in long long end,
>                                        [optional] in DOMString contentType);
>  };
>  
> +[scriptable, builtinclass, uuid(43c9856d-f2a7-4720-bca7-c731da24d99a)]

Why are you changing this?

@@ +72,5 @@
>    // This performs no security checks!
>    [noscript] readonly attribute DOMString mozFullPathInternal;
>  };
>  
> +[scriptable, builtinclass, uuid(c4a77171-039b-4f84-97f9-820fb51626af)]

And why this one didn't change?

Comment 2

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Checked in to inbound:

http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/6c328da30bed

Thanks for the quick review!

Comment 3

[Mounir Lamouri (:mounir)]

Merged:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6c328da30bed

Comment 4

[Davit Barbakadze]

"Add a test to ensure that sending a Blob through FormData and sending a Blob with an empty filename send the same data (this should be the case, right?)"

Not sure, but is what you say related to this one here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680423

Comment 5

[Davit Barbakadze]

Lines 357-360 have a comment:

// NB: This is a willful violation of the spec.  The spec says that
// the existing contents of the BlobBuilder should be included
// in the next blob produced.  This seems silly and has been raised
// on the WHATWG listserv.

Interesting note, but where in the spec this is mentioned, can't find, anyone quick link?... Sorry for slight offtopic.

Comment 6

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

(In reply to Davit Barbakadze from comment #5)
> Lines 357-360 have a comment:
> 
> // NB: This is a willful violation of the spec.  The spec says that
> // the existing contents of the BlobBuilder should be included
> // in the next blob produced.  This seems silly and has been raised
> // on the WHATWG listserv.
> 
> Interesting note, but where in the spec this is mentioned, can't find,
> anyone quick link?... Sorry for slight offtopic.

Well, it's more in what the spec doesn't say.  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-writer.html#widl-BlobBuilder-getBlob-Blob-in-DOMString-contentType makes no mention of clearing the existing contents of the BlobBuilder, and IMO it should.

Comment 7

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

In order to document this, I was looking in the spec where BlobBuilder.getFile() is defined. I didn't found anything in the latest Editor's Draft: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-writer.html

What am I missing?

Comment 8

[Eric Shepherd [:sheppy]]

According to comments above, it's not part of the spec but is apparently something we think should be. So we should document it and label it with the non-standard template for now.

Comment 9

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Actually, I've been convinced by various people that this function is a bad idea, so we'll likely remove it before long. So not sure it's worth spending time on documenting.

Comment 10

[Eric Shepherd [:sheppy]]

Is there a bug on removing getFile()? I need to keep aware of the status of that to be sure the docs get updated (or not) as appropriate based on the final decision there.

Comment 11

[Davit Barbakadze]

@Jonas Sicking, can you share some arguments for getFile being a bad idea?

Comment 12

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Both google and microsoft preferred a solution where the File interface always represents blobs backed by a OS-filesystem-file. That makes the distinction between Blobs and Files more meaningful and makes it easier to add more metadata to File later.

Note that this does not mean that Blobs which aren't Files can't also be backed by a OS-filesystem-file. It just means that that metadata wouldn't be available in that case.

Comment 13

[Florian Scholz (Open Web Docs)]

This interface is deprecated and marked as such in the docs. I've added getFile() for completeness as it's implemented since Fx 8.0:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/BlobBuilder

Make sure to add dev-doc-needed to any follow-up bugs which will remove it.