Thanks for all the feedbacks so far.
Now that the thread became quieter, I hope we're getting agreed,
at least on the basic concept. To make the points clearer, let me
summarize what is being proposed (and what is not) with the quota API:
- To have unified, shared quotas between different
Some other topics I have not (explicitly) responded yet:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:32 PM, João Eiras joao.ei...@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,
2011/2/7 Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@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
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@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
On 2/4/2011 2:29 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2011/2/4 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com
mailto:ife...@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
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us wrote:
I rather like the prompt in the new FF builds; it's similar to the prompt on
Mobile Safari;
when you get into the site, it asks you if you're ok storing data, and it
allows you to specify a quota stepping.
FF does a great
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@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
On 2/4/2011 1:30 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@visc.us wrote:
The FileSystem API is a tricky thing.
indexedDB is more straightforward.
I'd be fine with exempting localStorage from API and just lock it at
5MB. It's tricky anyway since it's a
Hi,
Back then there has been a long thread [1] about how/whether we want to
allow web apps to request quotas for IndexedDB, or for any of the offline
storages (i.e. IndexedDB, FileSystem, appCache, localStorage and SQL DB).
In short there were two topics discussed:
1) introducing (at least)
Howdy.
interface StorageInfo {
Should probably be QuotaInfo or even QuotaManager ? Storage can and
will be confused with Web Storage.
// storage type
const unsigned short TEMPORARY = 0;
const unsigned short PERSISTENT = 1;
Only two values seem not enough for me and I disagre
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:32 AM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy.
interface StorageInfo {
Should probably be QuotaInfo or even QuotaManager ? Storage can and
will be confused with Web Storage.
// storage type
const unsigned short TEMPORARY = 0;
const unsigned
Should probably be QuotaInfo or even QuotaManager ? Storage can and
will be confused with Web Storage.
// storage type
const unsigned short TEMPORARY = 0;
const unsigned short PERSISTENT = 1;
Only two values seem not enough for me and I disagre with the
nomenclature. Would be
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
Should probably be QuotaInfo or even QuotaManager ? Storage can and
will be confused with Web Storage.
// storage type
const unsigned short TEMPORARY = 0;
const unsigned short PERSISTENT = 1;
Only two values
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
Back then there has been a long thread [1] about how/whether we want to
allow web apps to request quotas for IndexedDB, or for any of the offline
storages (i.e. IndexedDB, FileSystem, appCache, localStorage and SQL
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
interface StorageInfo {
// storage type
const unsigned short TEMPORARY = 0;
const unsigned short PERSISTENT = 1;
// To query how much storage is available and currently in use.
void
Before storing X amount of data with an API, the code requests enough
space for the storage area that API covers. That's how I understand
the use case. Then it's up to the user agent to communicate that
appropriately to the user, if applicable.
Why would we need to have the app specify I want
On 2/3/2011 3:59 PM, João Eiras wrote:
Because the user agent needs to differentiate which api will use each
quota.
But why does a user agent need to do that? It seems like that is adding
unnecessary complication to the API.
Cheers,
Shawn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
Before storing X amount of data with an API, the code requests enough
space for the storage area that API covers. That's how I understand
the use case. Then it's up to the user agent to communicate that
appropriately to
On , Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2/3/2011 3:59 PM, João Eiras wrote:
Because the user agent needs to differentiate which api will use each
quota.
But why does a user agent need to do that? It seems like that is adding
unnecessary complication to the API.
Or adding
On 2/3/2011 4:35 PM, João Eiras wrote:
Or adding unnecessary complication to the implementation.
I'm not looking to make my job easier (as an implementer); I'm looking
to make it easy to use. At least with IndexedDB, we generally choose
the option that is easier for the consumer as long as it
I rather like the prompt in the new FF builds; it's similar to the
prompt on Mobile Safari;
when you get into the site, it asks you if you're ok storing data, and
it allows you to specify a quota stepping.
FF does a great job on applicationCache + quota in that area.
The FileSystem API is a
Thanks for all of your feedbacks.
So it seems like one of the main discussion topic is whether we want to
have shared quota between multiple storage mechanisms (per origin,
per persistent/temporary storage class) or not.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I
I'm not sure FileSystem is necessarily any trickier from a user's
perspective -- it's all storage that is taking up space on my HD (at least,
for now the filesystem is just a directory under the user's profile in
Chrome). I think it fits fine in the unified quota model. (And FWIW we are
looking at
On 2/3/2011 9:39 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I'm not sure FileSystem is necessarily any trickier from a user's
perspective -- it's all storage that is taking up space on my HD (at
least, for now the filesystem is just a directory under the user's
profile in Chrome). I think it fits fine in
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us wrote:
On 2/3/2011 9:39 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I'm not sure FileSystem is necessarily any trickier from a user's
perspective -- it's all storage that is taking up space on my HD (at least,
for now the filesystem is
On 2/3/2011 10:36 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us
mailto:ch...@visc.us wrote:
On 2/3/2011 9:39 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I'm not sure FileSystem is necessarily any trickier from a
user's perspective --
26 matches
Mail list logo
