cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Looking at the new File API pragmatically
Date Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:24:57 GMT
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Bryan Higgins <bryan@bryanhiggins.net>wrote:

> +1 to replacing toURL with toNativeURL behaviour
>

I think that's what I'll do. I'm also adding a "toInternalURL" method --
not because it's necessarily useful for end users, but because we can use
it as the single method to construct URLs for transport across the bridge.


> For accessing the root file system, what I'd personally like is a ROOT
> filesystem type for requestFileSystem. If the file-system-roots plugin
> provides that I think we should definitely pull it in.
>

It does provide that; although I haven't enabled it by default. I've been
pretty wary of allowing JavaScript to arbitrarily access *everything* on
the entire device that is permitted by the OS.


>
> For the camera and media plugins on BB10 we return a full path relative to
> the file system root as the native apps save into default locations. I
> wonder if there is an opportunity to add additional roots which map to
> default locations for pictures, music and video (maybe also documents?). It
> seems like that would be super useful for media player apps or downloaders.
>

That's the whole point of the file-system-roots plugin -- on Android, it
adds things like sdcard, external cache, external persistent files,
documetns, etc. On iOS, it gives library, documents, cache, bundle, and a
couple of non-icloud-synced versions of them. I'd love to get a set of
useful BlackBerry file system roots as well.

Ian

>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Ian Clelland <
> iclelland@chromium.org
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >> > This is ugly, though, and is going to get worse over time, and
> > become
> > > a
> > > >> > division between Cordova and any platforms which actually
> implement
> > > the
> > > >> > File API correctly. I'd like to propose switching the behaviour
of
> > > >> > .toURL(), to match .toNativeURL -- returning a webview-usable
URL
> by
> > > >> > default -- and implementing some other method or property to
get
> the
> > > CDV
> > > >> > URL when it's necessary.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Everything you've said sounds like its all upside to make the
> switch.
> > >  So
> > > >> I'm curious, when would CDV URL be necessary/useful over
> file/content
> > > >> urls?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > cdvfile:// URLs would still be necessary when dealing with files that
> > > just
> > > > don't *have* an alternate representation. There currently aren't any
> of
> > > > those, but we could implement virtual file systems entirely inside
> of a
> > > > plugin, and those would require a cdvfile:// URL to be read.
> > > >
> > > > I think we'd recommend them when saving URLs to persistent storage,
> if
> > > > there is any chance that the actual files could be moved / migrated,
> > and
> > > we
> > > > could hide that from the user by giving them a more abstract
> identifier
> > > > than one which specifies a physical location.
> > > > cdvfile://localhost/persistent/my/file.txt might be more durable over
> > > time
> > > > than file:///data/data/com.company.package/files/my/file.txt, perhaps
> > > > across OS upgrades.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, forget all of that.
> > >
> > > Your question had me looking for reasons to advocate users using
> > cdvfile://
> > > URLs, when perhaps none exist. The truth of the matter is this: The
> > cdvfile
> > > URL has two parts: the filesystem name, and the full path. Those two
> > parts
> > > form a consistent internal representation for all of the types of file
> > that
> > > the plugin can handle, and so all of the internal / native bits of the
> > file
> > > plugin use them almost exclusively. We make sure that every FileEntry
> and
> > > DirectoryEntry has those parts, and we only need to turn them into a
> URL
> > > for passing them across the bridge.
> > >
> > > One day someone may discover a great reason to use deliberately use
> > cdvfile
> > > URLs at the application level; until then, they're available, and we
> can
> > > continue to use them internally to simplify the plugin code, enforce
> the
> > > sandboxing, and make everything generally more consistent and
> efficient,
> > > and users shouldn't need to know or care what the URLs in use actually
> > are.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with this as long as the URLs are useable in the WebView (as src
> > attributes for example). If they're not, I also suggest that we return
> URLs
> > that are useable (file:///, content:/// or whatever) by default.
> >
> > As for filesystems (temp or persistent), I think most developers will use
> > whatever the default is. BUT they should be able to specify where they
> want
> > to store their data if they feel like it without using a third-party
> > plugin.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message