- From: Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:40:14 +0900
- To: Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Some other topics I have not (explicitly) responded yet: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com> wrote: > > interface StorageInfo { > > Should probably be QuotaInfo or even QuotaManager ? Storage can and > will be confused with Web Storage. I have no strong opinion here, while I mildly preferred 'StrongInfo' as the API is meant to provide a common interface to various storage APIs. Maybe QuotaInfo is better? On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com> wrote: > > Hum, right. But then my comment does apply to "requestQuota" no ? No > > need to ping data files to store a new value for the quota, which is > > usually just a pref. > > That's an implementation detail. Plus, storing a preference to a > persistent database involves file IO, which can take an arbitrarily > long time and/or fail. > An async API leaves a lot of freedom for developers, so in general we > try to use them for everything new outside the worker context. As for sync vs async interfaces, I really would like to keep it asynchronous. As Eric suggested UA may need some disk IO to return the info or make a decision. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > One thing that you are not discussing is UA behavior when the quota > limit is reached. In Firefox 4, for IndexedDB, once the page reaches > 50MB, we prompt the user if he/she wants to allow the page to store > more information. Only if the user chooses "no" do we start failing > writes. If the user chooses "yes" the fact that we reached the quota > limit is transparent to the page (apart from that a write takes a bit > longer while waiting for the prompt). > Technically we don't need to change anything about the spec to handle > this, we can just allow the UA to increase the quota limit at any > point in time if it desires. But I figured I should bring it up. Thanks for bringing it up. Currently I do not intend to include the UI prompting policies/issues or how UA should behave when the quota limit is reached in the spec. And also (as I noted in my several previous emails) I generally think that prompting to the user should be avoided as much as possible, as far as the request from the page does not impose major/visible pressure to the user disk. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 ? > > Saying 4*1024*1024*1024 isn't a lot of work, and using different units means > I have to remember which units each function uses. Using bytes might be overkill, but here I have a sympathy to Glenn's opinion as I myself often get confused by different units in different APIs, and I'd like to keep it to use bytes, the simplest units. Thanks,
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 11:41:05 UTC