W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Storage and widgets

From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:01:20 +0100
Cc: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <795621C0-ECB5-42B2-A6D4-A6F378226208@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
I think perhaps the underlying assumptions may vary according to the  
type of UA?

However, I think even on a single-user O/S (e.g. mobile) or in a  
sandboxed user context you would still want to maintain storage of  
preferences on a per-instance basis.

For example, if you had more than one instance of a single widget,  
you'd most likely want this as you needed to have different  
configurations for each (e.g. two single-feed RSS widgets, each one  
with a different feed). If widgets shared a single preference state by  
type then this wouldn't work.


On 25 Apr 2009, at 15:37, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> It's probably worthwhile to be more explicit about the requirements  
> here:  In Guido's and my discussion, we assumed a requirement to  
> have persistent storage that might be available to *all* instances  
> of a widget.  That's different from per-instance storage which could  
> indeed be solved easily within the currently proposed framework.
> I'm not sure whether the current requirements document actually  
> answers this question.
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
> On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:02, Scott Wilson wrote:
>> In our system when a widget is instantiated we generate our own  
>> instance hashes which we append to the widget URL as a parameter,  
>> and our Storage implementation uses this parameter when it needs to  
>> make a request back to our prefs web service to load preferences,  
>> or to set a preference.
>> I imagine any UA would put a similar mechanism in place in its  
>> Storage implementation to sandbox the preferences for widget  
>> instances; does that need to be specified?
>> On 24 Apr 2009, at 09:37, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:17:07 +0200, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> Guido Grassel is reminding me that the HTML5 storage API keys off
>>>> origin. Thy means another wrinkle or the uri scheme/origin  
>>>> discussion.
>>> Note that only the instantiations of storage, through the  
>>> localStorage and sessionStorage, are using origin.  The storage  
>>> interface itself does not, so I do not see any immediate  
>>> consequences with regards to preferences or any uri scheme  
>>> discussion.
>>> -- 
>>> Arve Bersvendsen
>>> Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2009 18:02:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:16 UTC