Re: Quota API to query/request quota for offline storages (e.g. IndexedDB, FileSystem)

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> 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.

If we think that most of users/developers wouldn't be interested in
specifying 'giving X bytes to storage A' and 'giving Y bytes to
storage B' or such that while both storage A and B eats the user's
disk, then probably UA should evolve in that direction.  That's my
assumption and why the proposed API look like that (i.e. 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.

The proposing API itself doesn't specify the frequency of
notifications or the behavior of out-of-quota scenarios, but probably
it might be worth adding some note about calling 'requestQuota()' does
not (and should not) always need to result in the UA prompting, and it
must be generally prohibited prompting the user too frequently.

The bottom line of whether we should prompt or not is, I suppose, if
UA ask for the user's permission to store some data in the storage,
the UA shouldn't delete the data without the user's permission.

> --
> Glenn Maynard
>

Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 11:21:00 UTC