JSZip VS lit

You can use a lib named JSZip : https://stuk.github.io/jszip/ You can add binary data (your audio slice) inside a zip like that

The ZIP file functionality was implemented using jszip - I'd originally wanted to download the files directly to a folder on the user's filesystem (coming from a scripting background) but turns out unrestricted filesystem access like that isn't something that browsers can do (at least from my limited research).

So to summarize, you need to use a NPM module that handles writing ZIP files, like jszip, but you also should learn about how the Node.js event loop works, and how asynchronous I/O routines run in the background, while your program continues its own execution without waiting.

I use JSZip (https://stuk.github.io/jszip/) to parse EPUB files

Your site went down for maintenance in the middle of my exploring, but here's some feedback so far. 1) The exports (CSV, PDF, etc) should probably include my username and Banano address. Right now there doesn't appear to be any indication of who a downloaded report is tied to. 2) Why do you let me download the database, including column names? If I was an attacker, I could use this to understand your DB layout and possibly do a SQL injection attack. I'd recommend masking the names somehow. 3) I did a quick review of the Github: a) jQuery 3.6.0 has a more recent version, 3.6.1 - https://blog.jquery.com/2022/08/26/jquery-3-6-1-maintenance-release/ b) In /history, you use JSZip 3.1.3, which has a known denial-of-service vulnerability that could take your site offline. This should be upgraded to 3.10.1 - https://stuk.github.io/jszip/

It uses other utility libraries like Lodash, JSZip and SortableJS. JSZip is used to package the user interface markup into HTML files and other required JavaScript files for a Marketplace App boilerplate in a compressed format and download them from the browser.

JSZip - JSZip is a javascript library for creating, reading and editing .zip files, with a lovely and simple API.

Another operation that is sometimes desired is to take several files and give the user a compressed file. There are actually a surprisingly large amount (jszip, pako) of client side options here, but my favorite so far when it comes to speed, size and working with .zip has been fflate. But if you'd like to work with other formats, there are also libraries to decompress 7-Zip, RAR & TAR.

See this: https://stuk.github.io/jszip/

That is the reason why I experiment with the TiniJS framework for a while. It is a collection of tools for developing web/desktop/mobile apps using the native Web Component technology, based on the Lit library. Thank you the Lit team for creating a great tool assists us working with standard Web Component easier.

https://github.com/lit/lit/tree/main/packages/labs/virtualiz...

actually, looking at it (https://lit.dev/), i do exactly that.

I also define a `render()` and extend my own parent, which does a `replaceChildren()` with the render. And, strangely, I also call the processor `html`

I'll still stick with mine however, my 'framework' is half-page of code. I dislike dependencies greatly. I'd need to be saving thousand+ lines at least.

Here, I don't want a build system to make a website; that's mad. So I don't want lit. I want the 5 lines it takes to invoke a dom parser, and the 5 lines it takes do define a webcomp parent.

I rather like https://lit.dev/ for web components so far.

For the reactivity stuff, you might want to read https://frontendmasters.com/blog/vanilla-javascript-reactivi... - it shows a bunch of no-library-required patterns that, while in a number of cases I'd much rather use a library myself, all seems at least -basically- reasonable to me and will probably be far more comprehensible to you than whatever I'd reach for, and frameworks are always much more pleasant to approach after you've already done a bunch of stuff by banging rocks together first.

I work on Lit, which I would hesitate to call a framework, but gives a framework-like DX for building web components, while trying to keep opinions to a minimum and lock-in as low as possible.

It's got reactivity, declarative templates, great performance, SSR, TypeScript support, native CSS encapsulation, context, tasks, and more.

It's used to build Material Design, settings and devtools UIs for Chrome, some UI for Firefox, Reddit, Photoshop Web...

https://lit.dev if you're interested.

I am more a fan of the augmented style because it doesn't entrap you in dev lock-in to platforms.

The problem with frameworks, especially web frameworks, is they reimplement many items that are standard now (shadowdom, components, storage, templating, base libraries, class/async, network/realtime etc).

If you like the component style of other frameworks but want to use Web Components, Google Lit is quite nice.

Google Lit is like a combination of HTML Web Components and React/Vue style components. The great part is it is build on Web Components underneath.

[1] https://lit.dev/

From the comments I see here, it seems like people expect the Webcomponents API to be a complete replacement for a JS framework. The thing is, our frameworks should start making use of modern web APIs, so the frameworks will have to do less themselves, so can be smaller. Lit [0] for example is doing this. Using Lit is very similar to using React. Some things work different, and you have to get used to some web component specific things, but once you get it, I think it's way more pleasant to work with than React. It feels more natural, native, less framework-specific.

For state management, I created LitState [1], a tiny library (really only 258 lines), which integrates nicely with Lit, and which makes state management between multiple components very easy. It's much easier than the Redux/flux workflows found in React.

So my experience with this is that it's much nicer to work with, and that the libraries are way smaller.

[0] https://lit.dev/