[whatwg] Proposal for Web Storage expiration

[Jeremy Orlow]

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
for.


> 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.

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