Re: [IndexedDB] Evictable stores

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
>
>