[whatwg] Notifications: usage feedback

Jonas Sicking jonas at sicking.cc
Tue Oct 29 08:43:57 PDT 2013

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:22 PM, James Burke <jrburke at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl> wrote:
>>> It seems using a structured clone makes the most sense. Transfering
>>> objects won't work here. It's not entirely clear to me what the best
>>> is for Blob, File, etc. Effectively the page can shut down, but they
>>> will still be kept alive through this Notification. I guess it's not
>>> too different from what Indexed DB can do.
>>> Is what what we want?
>> For my purposes, I was fine limiting to "JSON-serializable", as that
>> is basically what I got with the iconURL hack we use now. However it
>> is likely that you have a better idea of what makes sense across the
>> platform.
>> For the email use case for notifications, we expect the app to be
>> completely removed from memory every so often, so we just want to
>> store enough simple state to route the action to take for the
>> notification correctly. The data in that case is more like a GET
>> querystring.
> Okay, so maybe we should simply store a JavaScript string instead? No
> need to play with structured clones if something simple is sufficient
> I suppose.

Strings certainly solves the use cases since anything can be encoded
into a string. However it seems to me that using structured clones
will make things a lot easier for pages in many cases. This was always
*the* top complaint about localStorage from authors.

Either way we probably need to put some limit on how much data you can store.

/ Jonas

More information about the whatwg mailing list