On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Erik Arvidsson <a...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 19:23, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> On the topic of getting rid of BlobBuilder, do you have thoughts on > losing > >> the ability to back it by an on-disk file? > > > > I'm not sure I understand the problem. A Blob can also be backed by a > > on-disk file. > > > > Could you elaborate? > > I think the point is that with the old one you could generate lots of > data, add that to the blob, generate a lot more data and add that to > the blob. After every add it might be safe to gc that data. With this > proposal all that data needs to be in memory at the point of > construction. > > Could we add a concat like method to Blob that returns a new "larger" blob? > If concat also took an array and/or varargs, then I'd be happy with this and getting rid of BlobBuilder. > var bb = new BlobBuilder(); > bb.append(data); > bb.append(moreData); > var b = bb.getBlob(); > > var b = new Blob(); > b = b.concat(data); > b = b.concat(moreData); > > -- > erik >