On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> I'm starting to think ahead to how quotas will work with LocalStorage (and
>> I assume database and maybe even AppCache). To begin with, I'll probably
>> just set a fixed qu
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> I'm starting to think ahead to how quotas will work with LocalStorage (and
> I assume database and maybe even AppCache). To begin with, I'll probably
> just set a fixed quota (5mb is pretty standard), but some apps will surely
> desire more
I agree on the need for a better UI to manage cached resources and
selectively clear parts of the cache. The current web model of per-origin
grouping isn't very satisfying because some apps span multiple origins and
some origins host multiple apps. Given the extensive discussions around this
for th
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> I've been starting to lean in this direction as well. The problem is that
> extensions are currently not cross-platform and would require separate
> implementations for each platform.
Just to clarify, you really mean cross-browser, right? Chr
I recall that the SQL Storage API allows developers to declare up front how
much quota they want. Perhaps you should ask Hixie if we want to make this
an option for local storage as well?
BTW, I can't find the HTML5 sql storage spec anymore - google is totally
failing me. Anyone have a link?
-atw
On 29-Jul-09, at 2:35 PM, Ian Fette wrote:
> It got ripped out because Mozilla has refused to implement. An old
> version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
Well, more because people felt like it was a contentious item that was
bloating / delaying the completion of HTML5. The co
BTW, this probably came off wrong. Mozilla and others had concerns about the
SQL-database versions, which I believe largely circled around the fact that
it wasn't well specified, everyone was just using sqlite, and there weren't
really multiple independent implementations, and as a result it was re
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> I've been starting to lean in this direction as well. The problem is that
> extensions are currently not cross-platform and would require separate
> implementations for each platform. And in many cases the extension delivery
> mechanism is un
that version no longer contains the sql database api :) you want
http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
2009/7/29 Mike Beltzner
> On 29-Jul-09, at 2:32 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
> BTW, I can't find the HTML5 sql storage spec anymore - google is totally
>> failing me. Anyone have a link?
>>
>
> http://
It got ripped out because Mozilla has refused to implement. An old version
is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
2009/7/29 Drew Wilson
> I recall that the SQL Storage API allows developers to declare up front how
> much quota they want. Perhaps you should ask Hixie if we want to make
On 29-Jul-09, at 2:32 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> BTW, I can't find the HTML5 sql storage spec anymore - google is
> totally failing me. Anyone have a link?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
cheers,
mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: c
Everything is a cache. We are free to toss out local storage, databases,
appcaches, cookies, etc. any time we want. I think the best way is to have a
good eviction algorithm for local storage.
What eviction algorithm are we using for the main browser cache? Perhaps
some version of that that account
On 29-Jul-09, at 2:31 PM, Ian Fette wrote:
> Add them to the malware blacklist :)
Yeah, I think this is right. Bad acting websites should be considered
malware, and blocked for that reason.
Linus: I agree that we can (and probably should) work on the webapps
list to build some good specific
Add them to the malware blacklist :)
2009/7/29 Jeremy Orlow
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Linus Upson wrote:
>
>> I'm coming to the opinion that we should leverage the install mechanism of
>> the extension system for apps that need special permissions, increased
>> quotas, expanded lifeti
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Linus Upson wrote:
> I'm coming to the opinion that we should leverage the install mechanism of
> the extension system for apps that need special permissions, increased
> quotas, expanded lifetimes, etc. The extension can be almost vacuous, and in
> our extension
In the past, Hixie has been against the notion of installed applications.
Perhaps for web pages that is the proper approach, however I really like
(from a UI/usability/security) perspective the notion of "installing"
something as a mechanism for granting trust. We can argue about how good the
"inst
I've been starting to lean in this direction as well. The problem is that
extensions are currently not cross-platform and would require separate
implementations for each platform. And in many cases the extension delivery
mechanism is under the control of an arbitrary third party (i.e. Google,
Mozil
I'm coming to the opinion that we should leverage the install mechanism of
the extension system for apps that need special permissions, increased
quotas, expanded lifetimes, etc. The extension can be almost vacuous, and in
our extension world exceptionally lightweight. It only needs to make the
spe
I would say that if all the browsers are doing 5MB fixed quota for local
storage, it is a good way to start. Sadly, I think we need to start thinking
about this now for databases though (certainly I don't want to hit yes 4,000
times as my gmail syncs up to 20GB)
2009/7/29 Jeremy Orlow
> On Wed, J
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
>> That seems overly simplistic to me - for example, just because I
>> sometimes want to let a chat app have access to my camera, doesn't
>> mean I want it always to have access. Given th
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> That seems overly simplistic to me - for example, just because I
> sometimes want to let a chat app have access to my camera, doesn't
> mean I want it always to have access. Given the number of users I've
> seen fix this problem with duct tape
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Peter Kasting
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications from
>>> eating up disk, really.
>>
>> Yep, I a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner wrote:
>>
>> All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications from
>> eating up disk, really.
>
> Yep, I agree (although that may no longer be true in a few years as web apps
>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner wrote:
>
>> All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications from
>> eating up disk, really.
>>
>
> Yep, I agree (although that may no longer be true in a few years as web
> app
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner wrote:
> All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications from
> eating up disk, really.
>
Yep, I agree (although that may no longer be true in a few years as web apps
grow in power and complexity).
> In the world of normal applic
On 28-Jul-09, at 11:55 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> Putting aside the technical questions here, I'm a little skeptical
> from a UI perspective. How do I know what's OK and what's not? If
> a "bad" app wants to use a lot of disk, can it convince me to let it
> if I'm a novice user? In other
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> One approach that seems obvious to a lot of people I've talked to is asking
> the user (maybe via an info bar?) whenever an origin hits its limit
>
Putting aside the technical questions here, I'm a little skeptical from a UI
perspective. Ho
27 matches
Mail list logo
