W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

From: Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:36:30 -0700
Message-ID: <q2k44b058fe1004221536sa8cf848cld548e6f6a630db89@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:37:33 -0700 Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com> wrote:
>> I think ericu is baking in a distinction in between 'permanent' and
>> 'temporary' in the FileSystem API he's working on. Some harmony across all
>> flavors of local storage could be good.
> He is:
>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-dir-sys.html#using-localfilesystemsync
> I haven't seen ericu pop up in this thread but I guess he's reading it. Either way, it's certainly an approach that I'd be happy to see fine-tuned to be more or less consistent across various local storage mechanisms.

Thanks Robin--I'm actually just now catching up on most of my email,
as I've been out of the office for a week.

I agree completely that we need consistency across storage mechanisms.
 Using Nikunj's terminology, I'd love to see an evictable/persistent
split on all storage types, and some kind of unified quota management
for all client-side storage.  I'm not sure that we need to spec out
all the quota management stuff--we should leave a lot of room for UAs
to experiment with how to interact with the user--but if we can add a
simple mechanism for declaring/requesting quota across all storage
types, I think that would be very helpful.

Dumi has proposed a programmatic API, and Tab has suggested a new
input type.  I think either of those would be OK as long as
interaction is completely asynchronous.

Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 22:37:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:24 UTC