Re: [whatwg/storage] Multiple buckets (#2)

Yes, Firefox is interested in evolving how we do quota management and eviction, and allowing / strongly encouraging sites to use multiple buckets feels like a fundamental necessity.  In particular, we'd like to move away from promising that an origin (well, rather, eTLD+1 group) can have 10% of the user's free disk space or 2GiB, whichever is smaller.  If instead we could give a 10-100MiB quota and require that any additional usage beyond that has to happen in specifically named and evictable buckets, that would allow a much more sane and intentional eviction mechanism.

At the [W3C Gaming Workshop](https://www.w3.org/2018/12/games-workshop/), people expressed a lot of interest in this as well, however no one expressed any API exposure preferences.

Relatedly, I proposed https://github.com/WICG/background-fetch/issues/135 as a sort of bridge to a multiple buckets future.  The core idea is that downloads are an ambient, revocable UX prompting mechanism that avoids spamming the user with prompts they don't care about.  It would be nice to align buckets with such a UX convention rather than having users always need to fall back to a "storage manager"-styled UX like Firefox exposes under about:preferences.  (Even if users didn't pay too much attention to the downloads, I would hope it would bias sites to use human-readable names since it would add user confusion to their list of things for developers to worry about.)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/storage/issues/2#issuecomment-510169568