On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured clone
> algorithm rather than strings. And yet there isn't a single implementation
> who's implemented th
On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured clone
algorithm rather than strings. And yet there isn't
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
>>> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the str
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
> > On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated th
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>I won't be the person implementing it, but fwiw I highly value having
>structured clones actually work. Any time I talk about localStorage
>or similar, I get people asking about storing non-string data, and not
>wanting to have to futz around with rolling their own seriali
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>>
>>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
>>> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
> > On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has sti
On Dec 2, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
>>> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the struct
On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >>>
> >>
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:51:29 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
We think this feature would be straightforward to implement in
Safari/WebKit, and we think it is a useful feature. We would like to
implement it at some point. I can't give a specific timeline.
I am not sure if it is straightforw
Have you guys considered what happens when a Blob is present? I'm very
concerned about that case since WebStorage is a synchronous API. If storing
a Blob in LocalStorage involves synchronous disk IO, then I'm pretty sure it
is something I would object to implementing. I don't think there is a
ha
I will also add that I think WebStorage (well LocalStorage) is terrible from
a performance point of view because it is synchronous, and I'd be very happy
if we could discourage its usage and give people more reasons to adopt a
better API like IndexedDB.
-Darin
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:41 AM, D
I recall talking to hixie about this at some point, and I recall that at that
point localstorage was explicitly prevented from Blobs, although I can't see
any sign of that rule anymore :-/
--Oliver
On Dec 3, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> Have you guys considered what happens when a
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> I recall talking to hixie about this at some point, and I recall that at
> that point localstorage was explicitly prevented from Blobs, although I
> can't see any sign of that rule anymore :-/
Blobs are fine, they're async anyway. To store one you'd jus
On , Darin Fisher wrote:
I will also add that I think WebStorage (well LocalStorage) is terrible from
a performance point of view because it is synchronous, and I'd be very happy
if we could discourage its usage and give people more reasons to adopt a
better API like IndexedDB.
-Darin
I don
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:23 AM, João Eiras wrote:
> On , Darin Fisher wrote:
>
> I will also add that I think WebStorage (well LocalStorage) is terrible
>> from
>> a performance point of view because it is synchronous, and I'd be very
>> happy
>> if we could discourage its usage and give people
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:23 AM, João Eiras wrote:
>
>> On , Darin Fisher wrote:
>>
>> I will also add that I think WebStorage (well LocalStorage) is terrible
>>> from
>>> a performance point of view because it is synchronous, and I'd be ver
17 matches
Mail list logo
