- From: Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:50:44 -0800
- To: Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com> wrote: > Howdy. > >> interface StorageInfo { > > Should probably be QuotaInfo or even QuotaManager ? Storage can and > will be confused with Web Storage. > >> // storage type >> const unsigned short TEMPORARY = 0; >> const unsigned short PERSISTENT = 1; >> > > Only two values seem not enough for me and I disagre with the > nomenclature. Would be betteer to have > LOCAL_STORAGE, SESSION_STORAGE, WEB_SQL_DBS, INDEXED_DB and so on. But > that would create artificial dependencies with the other specs, so it > would be better if "type" passed to the query and request functions to > just be an opaque string which would allow any offline storage spec to > refer to this one instead and specify a type of their own like > "localStorage", "sessionStorage", "indexedDb". The point is that apps and users should be able to communicate about how much disk space should be used. Why would users care which API a web app is using for its storage? If google.com needs 10MB to store my email, why should I care whether it's in indexedDB, localStorage, or the FileSystem? >> // To query how much storage is available and currently in use. >> void queryUsage(unsigned short storageType, >> UsageCallback usageCallback); >> > > Given that quota values are usually just preferences, hence > lightweight enough, this function should be sync for the sake of > simplicity. This doesn't request just the preference; it returns how much space is actually used. That might be an expensive operation, might require disk IO to fetch a value from an internal database, etc. By default, we try to make all new APIs async so as not to constrain implementation. > General note: using bytes as measure is probably overkill. While I > doubt localStorage would even exceed a couple megabytes, making an > entire e-mail account available offline with indexedDb or web sql db > could easily climb to a couple GBs. Perhaps kilobytes is better ? Possibly, although there's no harm in allowing extra precision, and nothing forcing UAs not to round values anyway.
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2011 16:51:32 UTC