Yep, you're right that checking FLAG_SUPPORTS_WRITE is the best way to check if a write is allowed.
If you're really looking to focus on writing data, then ACTION_CREATE_DOCUMENT might be a better fit, since it also lets the user select an existing file, and it filters to only allow selection of documents that have FLAG_SUPPORTS_WRITE set. I'm thinking that allowing an app to request filtering of read-only documents during a OPEN_DOCUMENT request would lead to user confusion because of the inconsistency between apps. (For example, a user would still expect to open a read-only document for viewing purposes.) If a user then tried saving changes to a read-only document, it makes sense for the app to use CREATE_DOCUMENT to ask them to save the modifications somewhere else. Hope this helps. :) j On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I can tell from the documentation and testing with the new > Storage Access Framework and Intent.ACTION_OPEN_DOCUMENT, there doesn't > seem to be a way (via an extra or otherwise) to pass with the Intent > request to open a document to only return documents from providers that > support writing (i.e. have FLAG_SUPPORTS_WRITE set). Instead, we are > forced to check a document selection made by the user (via a metadata > query) to determine if the document supports write before we attempt to > open an OutputStream or ParcelFileDescriptor in "w" mode. Is this correct, > or have I overlooked something? > > This seems to be a large missing piece in the new Storage Access Framework > when attempting to allow a user to open an existing document to be edited > as it forces the user to make a selection first, then have us check if they > can write, throw and error if they cannot, and force them to pick again. > Furthermore, we cannot say that it is uncommon for documents providers not > to support writing, because even the system media documents provider (i.e. > the source for images/videos) does not support write and will throw and > IllegalArgumentException ("Media is read-only") when one attempts to write > to one of its files (as an image editing app, the most common example used > in the docs, would attempt to do). Is there a proper method with the new > SAF of limiting selections to writable providers only? > > Feedback appreciated for anything I may have missed here. As it stands, > suggesting that developers use ACTION_OPEN_DOCUMENT for in-place editing > doesn't seem like a viable approach. > > Dave Smith > @devuwired > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Android Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Android Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Jeff Sharkey [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
