184
edits
JSFileApi: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Problems addressed by this API
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*input/output streams do not play too nicely with JavaScript. | *input/output streams do not play too nicely with JavaScript. | ||
Note | '''Note''' Do we know how expensive the XPCom/XPConnect overhead is, by opposition to js-ctypes and JSAPI? | ||
The present proposal attempts to address these points as follows: | The present proposal attempts to address these points as follows: | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*it attempts to minimize filename lookups by using file/directory descriptors wherever possible; | *it attempts to minimize filename lookups by using file/directory descriptors wherever possible; | ||
*it attempts to minimize calls to <tt>stat</tt>, in particular when traversing a directory; | *it attempts to minimize calls to <tt>stat</tt>, in particular when traversing a directory; | ||
*input/output attempts to play much more nicely with JavaScript, by using JavaScript low-level data structures designed for this task (and which didn't exist when the nsIFile API was designed). | *input/output attempts to play much more nicely with JavaScript, by using JavaScript low-level data structures designed for this task (and which didn't exist when the <tt>nsIFile</tt> API was designed). | ||
= Problems not addressed by this API = | = Problems not addressed by this API = | ||