Pepper: Add append support to FileIO.

Pepper: Add append support to FileIO.

This change adds a PP_FILEOPENFLAG_APPEND flag to PP_FileOpenFlags which will
force all writes to be appended to the end of the file instead of the current
file position. This flag is mutually exclusive with PP_FILEOPENFLAG_WRITE.

BUG=242383
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=205817

[teravest, 2013-06-11 18:18:21]

Presumably we'll want to make the new flag only usable for M29 and newer
versions of chrome. Do you know a good example of another interface offhand with
some enum values only supported in some versions?

[dmichael (off chromium), 2013-06-11 20:02:22]

+yzshen: Yuzhu, do you have any opinion about adding an enum value here and
revving the API?

https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/1/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/1/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#new...
ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:15: M25 = 1.1
I think we should update to 1.2 so that a consumer can tell if APPEND is
available.

https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/1/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#new...
ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:56: */
I think it would be good to comment that this is only valid to use as of version
1.2, which is supported in Chrome 29 and later. I think we can avoid having more
than 1 enum type defined.

[teravest, 2013-06-11 20:20:26]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM,  <dmichael@chromium.org> wrote:
> +yzshen: Yuzhu, do you have any opinion about adding an enum value here and
> revving the API?
>
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/1/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
> File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/1/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#new...
> ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:15: M25 = 1.1
> I think we should update to 1.2 so that a consumer can tell if APPEND is
> available.

Done.

>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/1/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#new...
> ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:56: */
> I think it would be good to comment that this is only valid to use as of
> version 1.2, which is supported in Chrome 29 and later. I think we can
> avoid having more than 1 enum type defined.

Sounds good. Done.

>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/

[yzshen1, 2013-06-11 20:49:32]

Hi, David and Justin.

It looks good to add a new enum value. It would be nice to send a mail to our
team before landing it because we will change a stable API.

Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#...
ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:58: * This is only supported in version 1.2 (M29) and
later.
I think it is allowed to have [version=xx] label on an enum value.
Have you tried that?

[teravest, 2013-06-11 20:51:42]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM,  <yzshen@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi, David and Justin.
>
> It looks good to add a new enum value. It would be nice to send a mail to
> our
> team before landing it because we will change a stable API.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
> File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#...
> ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:58: * This is only supported in version 1.2
> (M29) and later.
> I think it is allowed to have [version=xx] label on an enum value.
> Have you tried that?

It's allowed, but it doesn't change the generated header. Do you
prefer that annotation to the comment? Or should I have both?

>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/

[yzshen1, 2013-06-11 21:07:17]

On 2013/06/11 20:51:42, teravest wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM,  <mailto:yzshen@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi, David and Justin.
> >
> > It looks good to add a new enum value. It would be nice to send a mail to
> > our
> > team before landing it because we will change a stable API.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
> > File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#...
> > ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:58: * This is only supported in version 1.2
> > (M29) and later.
> > I think it is allowed to have [version=xx] label on an enum value.
> > Have you tried that?
> 
> It's allowed, but it doesn't change the generated header. Do you
> prefer that annotation to the comment? Or should I have both?
> 
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/

I personally perfer to have both. What do you think?

[teravest, 2013-06-11 21:09:58]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM,  <yzshen@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 2013/06/11 20:51:42, teravest wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM,  <mailto:yzshen@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > Hi, David and Justin.
>> >
>> > It looks good to add a new enum value. It would be nice to send a mail
>> > to
>> > our
>> > team before landing it because we will change a stable API.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
>> > File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/5001/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#...
>>
>> > ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:58: * This is only supported in version 1.2
>> > (M29) and later.
>> > I think it is allowed to have [version=xx] label on an enum value.
>> > Have you tried that?
>
>
>> It's allowed, but it doesn't change the generated header. Do you
>> prefer that annotation to the comment? Or should I have both?
>
>
>> >
>> > https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/
>
>
> I personally perfer to have both. What do you think?

Sounds good to me. Done.

>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/

[dmichael (off chromium), 2013-06-11 21:18:29]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/8002/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/8002/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#...
ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:58: * This is only supported in version 1.2 (M29) and
later.
M29 probably doesn't mean anything to most plugin or NaCl developers. I'd say
Chrome 29.

[teravest, 2013-06-11 21:23:49]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM,  <dmichael@chromium.org> wrote:
> lgtm
>
>
>
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/8002/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl
> File ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/diff/8002/ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl#...
>
> ppapi/api/ppb_file_io.idl:58: * This is only supported in version 1.2
> (M29) and later.
> M29 probably doesn't mean anything to most plugin or NaCl developers.
> I'd say Chrome 29.

Done. I had been trying to be consistent with the version map at the
top of the file.

>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/16765005/

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-11 21:24:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/teravest@chromium.org/16765005/16001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-12 16:33:57]

Change committed as 205817