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

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:56:33 -0700
Message-ID: <l2pfa2eab051004291156t4fe9ee1bp31604bf77253d555@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Sounds like we agree on there being a distinction between two levels of
persistence with one being more permanent than the other. Great, provided
we have that agreement we can craft interfaces that allow callers to make
the distinction!

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 2010, at 01:35 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
> wrote:
> >>>> * We'd like to expire data in IndexDB after some time. This will
> >>>> likely be based on heuristics, such as haven't visited the site for an
> >>>> extended period of time, though possibly keep the data a bit longer if
> >>>> it was put in the database during offline mode and thus likely
> >>>> contains data from the user. So in other words, we'd like to prevent
> >>>> data staying on the users system indefinitely for a site that the user
> >>>> no longer uses.
> >>>
> >>> Just to clarify: you're looking to expire storage that's marked as
> >>> persistent [or something like that] or that's marked as temporary, or
> >>> you're not planning to distinguish strongly between types of storage?
> >>
> >> We're definitely looking at expiring both. Though possibly with
> >> different levels of aggressiveness.
> >
> > I find this somewhat puzzling. As a user, if you've shown me a UI telling
> me you're asking for permanent storage to store the data I'm using in
> conjunction with a given app, you'd better never, ever so much as muse about
> expiring it, no matter how meekly. If you do, and I lose all those captioned
> kittens I'd been working on but put on the back burner, you can be sure I'll
> show up at your place to have a discussion about aggressive expiration. What
> am I missing?
> I think we were operating under the assumption that we're going to
> avoid involving the user until neccesary. So for example letting the
> site store a few MB of data without the user getting involved, and
> only once enough storage is wanted by the site, ask the user if this
> is ok.
> Asking on the first byte written does change things I agree. We'd have
> to look into that.
> / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 18:57:16 UTC

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