W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

RE: [IndexedDB] Evictable stores

From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 00:14:31 +0000
To: David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F108E2F6BA743C4696146F0B7111C26127EA92@TK5EX14MBXC244.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

From: dgrogan@google.com [mailto:dgrogan@google.com] On Behalf Of David Grogan
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 1:01 PM

>> We (chrome) are still having internal discussions about evictable vs non-evictable storage; we're on board with worrying about this in v2.
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Pablo Castro
>> <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> > We discussed evictable stores some time ago and captured it in bug 11350 [1], but I haven't seen further discussion on it and it hasn't gone into the spec. I'm curious on where folks are with this? Should we move it to v2? Should we just allow UAs to have their own policy around eviction (back at TPAC it seemed folks had reasonable but different strategies for handling when to allow websites to use storage already).
>> >> I think this is a very interesting feature, but one that I'd prefer to
>> >> move to a version 2 as it isn't a required feature and is one that
>> >> seems easy to "retrofit".
>> >>
>>  >> / Jonas

Got it. I postponed the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 00:15:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT