On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Clement <mi...@google.com> wrote: > FWIW, the "transient" vs. "permanent" storage support is exactly why I > eagerly await an implementation of EricU's Filesystem API. Being able to > guarantee that the UA will not discard potentially irreplaceable data is of > paramount importance to web apps that want to work in an offline mode. > > I also find that the current arbitrary quota limit of 5MB per domain makes > local storage APIs unusable for all but the most rudimentary apps (e.g., > sticky note demo apps). There is an asymmetric distribution of local storage > needs out there that no one is yet addressing (e.g., a photo- or > video-related app might need GBs of local storage, an offline mail app might > need tens or hundreds of MB, a TODO list app might only need kilobytes, > etc.). > I wholeheartedly support any effort to coordinate quota management among all > of the various local storage APIs. The issue of quota limits is something > that browser vendors will need to address soon enough, and it's probably best > left up to them. The need for "permanent" storage across all local storage > APIs, though, is something that in my opinion should come out of the > standardization process. > > Here's a stab at defining programming interfaces that make a distinction > between "transient" vs "permanent" for the storage mechanisms. If we make > additions like this, we should use the same terminology across the board. > > // WebSqlDBs, also could work for IndexedDBs > window.openDatabase(...); // temporary > window.openPermanentDatabase(...); > > // AppCaches, embellish the first line of the manifest file > CACHE MANIFEST > CACHE MANIFEST PERMANENT > > // FileSystem, see the draft, i've change the terms a little here > window.requestFilesystem(...); // evictable > window.requestPermanentFilesystem(...) > > // LocalStorage > window.localStorage; // purgeable > window.permanentLocalStorage; > Could we create an additional optional parameter for an open request with the type of permanence required? Or is it not a good idea?
