Rename ReadableByteStream

[annevk]

As I understand it the primitive is not bytes, but the various views one can have upon an ArrayBuffer. The feedback from TPAC (by @othermaciej from Apple, if I remember correctly) was to then give it a more appropriate name. ArrayBufferStream might not be quite right either, but TypedArrayStream also seems wrong. Any ideas?

(That is, if we keep this as a distinct type. When will we decide on that?)

[wanderview]

I'd greatly prefer to see this type go away in favor of the constructor specialization.

[domenic]

(That is, if we keep this as a distinct type. When will we decide on that?)

My thinking on this is that the question will become more urgent as implementer work spins up. Right now Chrome at least is working on fetch-with-streams uploads and author-constructible ReadableStream types, deprioritizing byte stream work, since those are more basic scenarios demanded by customers. Any input from other implementers that they are particularly interested in starting work on the byte stream scenarios is welcome to help reprioritize that spec work.

As I understand it the primitive is not bytes, but the various views one can have upon an ArrayBuffer.

I don't really understand or agree with this. The primitive is bytes; those are what are being transported, and we are concerned with how to avoid buffer copies of those bytes. The use of typed arrays is just as a convenient and idiomatic way of packaging up { buffer, byteOffset, byteLength }.

[tyoshino]

It's likely that RS/RBS merge happens: #379

The concern may be applied if we leave some classes/methods that works only for "byte"/"ArrayBuffer" use cases.

[tyoshino]

ReadableByteStream has been merged into ReadableStream. See e601d69

Closing