[whatwg] Proposal for Web Storage expiration

Jeremy Orlow jorlow at chromium.org
Wed Aug 4 02:14:28 PDT 2010

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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?

No.  I think LocalStorage will stick around since it's just so simple to use
and a lot of people just need to store a tiny bit of data here or
there--much like cookies.  IndexedDB will be used for structured data, so I
don't see many people using it for things they one used (abused) cookies

> 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.

Jonas, are you against the expiration feature proposal for LocalStorage?
 Because no one else has voiced the typical "we should just leave
LocalStorage alone" concerns.  So if you're not, I think we can assume that
such types (me included) aren't going to raise such a concern.

I'm actually much less enthusiastic about expiration for IndexedDB as I
don't see very compelling use cases.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100804/2b72cd27/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list