On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote: > If we want to make the quota API treat each API differently this would > make a lot sense, but I'm not fully convinced by the idea. > Putting aside the localStorage for now, do you still see significant > issues in having a sshared single quota? Also let me note that > this API does not and should not guarantee that the app can actually > *write* that amount of data into the storage, even after the quota is > granted, and the UA could still stop an API to write further even if > it's within the quota. > I suppose that even the 2-3x difference--requesting 256 MB and actually getting 512 MB over different APIs--is acceptable, since to users, requesting storage is an order-of-magnitude question more than a precise number. As long as implementations are still allowed to implement separate quotas if they want, it's probably acceptable for this API to not reflect them precisely and to be biased towards a shared quota. 2011/2/4 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> > For instance, if a user has been using a site for months, uses it frequently, and the site hits its 5GB limit but there's still 300GB free on the drive, perhaps we just give the site another 5GB and give the user a passive indication that we've done so, and let them do something if they actually care. That's interesting; reducing the amount users are nagged about things that they probably don't care about is important. It would also need to suppress prompting from calls to requestQuota if the quota increase would have been allowed automatically. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 22:29:43 UTC