W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [widgets] localStorage vs preferences

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:29:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4A648D4D.5030106@opera.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>


On 7/20/09 4:32 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
> -1
>
> No, we should keep widget.preferences.
> If a UA wants to, it can simply implement it using:
>
> widget.preferences = window.localStorage;

"If the UA wants to" seems kinda bad... I think the spec should say 
something concrete about this. Either they are the same, or they are not.

We can't have on some platforms authors expecting values being 
simultaneously saved to widget.preferences and window.localStorage, and 
on others not.

> If it doesn't, the UA can do its own implementation, which we do for
> example, as for our UA localStorage is not an appropriate
> implementation, as our users are more likely to interact with the same
> widget using multiple browsers on multiple machines.

Ok, I guess this means that your implementation of widget.preferences is 
synchronizing multiple clients through some kind of server-sent events 
or polling.

However, can't you have a some kind of "synchronizer" that listens for 
Storage event and the sends those to the server to propagate to 
dependent clients?

> We can also
> implement widget.preferences. We can't reimplement the user's
> browser's WebStorage impl (if it has one).

Ok, understood. That makes sense from a "Wookie" perspective.

> For more detailed arguments for keeping preferences, just search back
> through the list ;-)
>
> (We've already argued this one loads of times, Marcos! Why has it come
> up again?)

I guess it helps me understand the problem and articulate use cases... 
need a "Wookie" reminder to keep me in check :)

Kind regards,
Marcos
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 15:29:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT