4 ms·

Author of zip.js here, the CompressionStream API is available for 3 years in Chromium-based browsers [1]. That's why I integrated it 6 months ago in zip.js. How

by gildas 4y ago

Author of zip.js here, the CompressionStream API is available for 3 years in Chromium-based browsers [1]. That's why I integrated it 6 months ago in zip.js. However zip.js can detect if the API is present or not, and can work if not available (e.g. in Firefox). It cannot detect implementation bugs in the API though. Note that there's also an option to disable the use of the API [2]. [1] https://caniuse.com/?search=CompressionStream https://caniuse.com/?search=CompressionStream [2] https://gildas-lormeau.github.io/zip.js/api/interfaces/Configuration.html#useCompressionStream https://gildas-lormeau.github.io/zip.js/api/interfaces/Confi...

turnsout 4y ago
It doesn't matter if it's been available for 10 years on Chrome—if it's not reliable on other platforms, don't use it. And you absolutely CAN and should detect implementation bugs in the API. At the very least you can throw CompressionStream's entire compression/decompression process behind a try…catch block, and fall back to the older method on an error.
- gildas 4y ago
  It was hard for me to anticipate that Apple would implement the CompressionStream API incorrectly 6 months later. However, it is extremely likely that an exception was indeed raised when this bug was triggered. I was never made aware of the existence of this bug. Besides, zip.js does its best to rely on fallback implementations in case of errors. I'm not supposed to integrate the entire CompressionStream API test suite (and all the other APIs) into zip.js either.
- jefftk 4y ago
  > It doesn't matter if it's been available for 10 years on Chrome—if it's not reliable on other platforms, don't use it. As an author you have two main options: 1. Feature detection: check to see if the API exists in the browser, and gracefully fall back if not. 2. UA-sniffing: use the API only on browsers where you've verified that your program works correctly with its implementation. There's pretty strong consensus on the web that authors should be doing (1), and that (2) is harmful to minority browsers. Every time someone says "the new feature works fine in Firefox if I set my UA to Chrome" they're complaining that the site didn't go with (1). Yes, using (1) means trusting browsers to get their implementations correct, but they are usually very good about this and getting better. The http://wpt.fyi http://wpt.fyi tests have been a big help here.
  - turnsout 4y ago
    I don't disagree with any of that, but you have another option: 0. Wait: Don't adopt the API at all if it is only supported in Chromium, because it's highly probable that the API will have behavioral or API differences if it's implemented by other browsers in the future.
    - gildas 4y ago
      Please read the documentation of the API and you might think the probability would be very low [1]. Note also that zip.js works totally fine in all stable browsers, Safari 16.4 included. There are no known issues [2]. I have absolutely no idea what we are talking about because it looks like the bug has been fixed by Apple in the stable version of Safari. And maybe zip.js helped them to do so. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Compression_Streams_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Compression... [2] https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/zip.js/issues https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/zip.js/issues
    - AshleysBrain 4y ago
      Waiting doesn't work when Apple do things like ship a working and spec-compliant WebAssembly API which works great so you start using it, then they completely break it in a subsequent update, and leave it both enabled and broken for months. No amount of foresight or caution will save you in that case. It's ultimately the browser maker's responsibility to make sure APIs work.
    - Uehreka 4y ago
      Chromium-based browsers make up a large portion of many people’s marketshare. It absolutely makes sense to use APIs that are available in them and then polyfill the feature with “the old way” if you feature-detect that it isn’t there. If browser vendors are releasing the feature unprefixed, that is their signal that they view the feature as stable. It is the responsibility of the browser vendor to ship unbroken features and use vendor prefixes to unambiguously mark if something isn’t fully baked. It is not the responsibility of developers to stick their finger in the wind and try to divine when a feature has subjectively “reached stability”.

by gildas 4y ago

turnsout 4y ago

It doesn't matter if it's been available for 10 years on Chrome—if it's not reliable on other platforms, don't use it. And you absolutely CAN and should detect implementation bugs in the API. At the very least you can throw CompressionStream's entire compression/decompression process behind a try…catch block, and fall back to the older method on an error.

gildas 4y ago
It was hard for me to anticipate that Apple would implement the CompressionStream API incorrectly 6 months later. However, it is extremely likely that an exception was indeed raised when this bug was triggered. I was never made aware of the existence of this bug. Besides, zip.js does its best to rely on fallback implementations in case of errors. I'm not supposed to integrate the entire CompressionStream API test suite (and all the other APIs) into zip.js either.
jefftk 4y ago
> It doesn't matter if it's been available for 10 years on Chrome—if it's not reliable on other platforms, don't use it. As an author you have two main options: 1. Feature detection: check to see if the API exists in the browser, and gracefully fall back if not. 2. UA-sniffing: use the API only on browsers where you've verified that your program works correctly with its implementation. There's pretty strong consensus on the web that authors should be doing (1), and that (2) is harmful to minority browsers. Every time someone says "the new feature works fine in Firefox if I set my UA to Chrome" they're complaining that the site didn't go with (1). Yes, using (1) means trusting browsers to get their implementations correct, but they are usually very good about this and getting better. The http://wpt.fyi http://wpt.fyi tests have been a big help here.
- turnsout 4y ago
  I don't disagree with any of that, but you have another option: 0. Wait: Don't adopt the API at all if it is only supported in Chromium, because it's highly probable that the API will have behavioral or API differences if it's implemented by other browsers in the future.
  - gildas 4y ago
    Please read the documentation of the API and you might think the probability would be very low [1]. Note also that zip.js works totally fine in all stable browsers, Safari 16.4 included. There are no known issues [2]. I have absolutely no idea what we are talking about because it looks like the bug has been fixed by Apple in the stable version of Safari. And maybe zip.js helped them to do so. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Compression_Streams_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Compression... [2] https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/zip.js/issues https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/zip.js/issues
  - AshleysBrain 4y ago
    Waiting doesn't work when Apple do things like ship a working and spec-compliant WebAssembly API which works great so you start using it, then they completely break it in a subsequent update, and leave it both enabled and broken for months. No amount of foresight or caution will save you in that case. It's ultimately the browser maker's responsibility to make sure APIs work.
  - Uehreka 4y ago
    Chromium-based browsers make up a large portion of many people’s marketshare. It absolutely makes sense to use APIs that are available in them and then polyfill the feature with “the old way” if you feature-detect that it isn’t there. If browser vendors are releasing the feature unprefixed, that is their signal that they view the feature as stable. It is the responsibility of the browser vendor to ship unbroken features and use vendor prefixes to unambiguously mark if something isn’t fully baked. It is not the responsibility of developers to stick their finger in the wind and try to divine when a feature has subjectively “reached stability”.