- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:29:03 -0400
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Peter Kasting<pkasting at google.com> wrote: > I think having authors choose between permanent and purgeable storage types > adds complexity to the implementation and usage that is not desirable from > either an authoring or a UX perspective. This complexity already exists for real apps, and developers seem fine with it. If you want persistent storage, you write to ~ or C:\Documents and Settings\ or such; if you want temporary storage, you write to /tmp or C:\temp\ or such. The distinction is useful to both users and developers, not burdensome. If authors can't say "this can be thrown out if I haven't used it for a while", poorly-written apps will ignore the issue and store data forever. If they're storing small amounts of data, they probably won't run into any limits in testing, so they might not bother with handling out-of-space errors properly. So then eventually the garbage will accumulate until they run out of room and die, or bother the user pointlessly. A properly-written app, on the other hand, will be burdened with managing its own temporary storage. Authors will have to manually keep track of which of their resources are temporary and figure out when to remove them. Authors can't do this as well as the browser can. Authors don't know how much disk space is free, or how much space other apps are using, and they're in no position to decide how much disk space *should* be free. They might use too much disk space, or slow down their app by caching less for fear of using too much disk space. The browser should manage cache purging for the same reason the OS manages the page cache instead of applications.
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 18:29:03 UTC