[whatwg] Proposal for Web Storage expiration
nzakas at yahoo-inc.com
Tue Aug 3 11:46:50 PDT 2010
Is it easier in terms of implementation issues or general consensus?
Commander Lock: "Dammit Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"
Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to."
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas at sicking.cc]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:51 PM
To: Nicholas Zakas
Cc: Scott Hess; Alexandre Morgaut; whatwg at lists.whatwg.org; Jeremy Orlow
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Proposal for Web Storage expiration
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Nicholas Zakas <nzakas at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> Yes, for IndexDB I think having a per-storage area expiration date completely makes sense. Do you expect that IndexedDB will become a successor to sessionStorage/localStorage? My belief is that the simple key-value store paradigm would still end up being the default client-side data storage utility, and would therefore benefit from having a per-key expiration time to mimic cookie usage.
I suspect it will be much easier to add to IndexedDB than to
localStorage/sessionStorage. I don't expect the latter to go away,
though generally it seems like people are disliking localStorage
enough that it's hard to get any changes made to it.
More information about the whatwg