Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Robin Berjon <> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 01:35 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Eric Uhrhane <> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Jonas Sicking <> 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 17:58:29 UTC