Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Clement <mikec@google.com> wrote:

> FWIW, the "transient" vs. "permanent" storage support is exactly why I
> eagerly await an implementation of EricU's Filesystem API.  Being able to
> guarantee that the UA will not discard potentially irreplaceable data is of
> paramount importance to web apps that want to work in an offline mode.
>
> I also find that the current arbitrary quota limit of 5MB per domain makes
> local storage APIs unusable for all but the most rudimentary apps (e.g.,
> sticky note demo apps).  There is an asymmetric distribution of local
> storage needs out there that no one is yet addressing (e.g., a photo- or
> video-related app might need GBs of local storage, an offline mail app might
> need tens or hundreds of MB, a TODO list app might only need kilobytes,
> etc.).
>
I wholeheartedly support any effort to coordinate quota management among all
> of the various local storage APIs.  The issue of quota limits is something
> that browser vendors will need to address soon enough, and it's probably
> best left up to them.  The need for "permanent" storage across all local
> storage APIs, though, is something that in my opinion should come out of the
> standardization process.
>

Here's a stab at defining programming interfaces that make a distinction
between "transient" vs "permanent" for the storage mechanisms. If we make
additions like this, we should use the same terminology across the board.

// WebSqlDBs, also could work for IndexedDBs
window.openDatabase(...);   // temporary
window.openPermanentDatabase(...);

// AppCaches, embellish the first line of the manifest file
CACHE MANIFEST
CACHE MANIFEST PERMANENT

// FileSystem, see the draft, i've change the terms a little here
window.requestFilesystem(...);    // evictable
window.requestPermanentFilesystem(...)

// LocalStorage
window.localStorage;    // purgeable
window.permanentLocalStorage;