On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Ian Fette (�~B��~B��~C��~C~U�~B��~C~C�~C~F�~B�) wrote:
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a problem
is the notion of the opaqueness of storage quotas in all of the new
Am 11. März 2010 14:50 schrieb Michael Nordman micha...@google.com:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
Yes, but I think there may be uses of things like storage for
non-offline
uses (pre-fetching
Am 11. März 2010 14:35 schrieb Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
AFAIK most browsers are setting a default quota for storage options that
is
on the order of megabytes.
Could well be, indeed. It sounded like you'd done some thinking about
2010/3/11 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
2010/3/10 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a problem
is
the notion of the opaqueness of storage quotas in
Am 10. März 2010 16:11 schrieb Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
2010/3/10 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a problem
is
the notion of the opaqueness
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
I would personally be in
favor of this approach, if only we had a good way to define what it meant to
offline the app. Right now, appcache, database, everything is advisory.
The browser runs across an appcache manifest and magically makes it
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
I think apps will have to deal with hitting quota as you describe, however
with a normal desktop app you usually have a giant disk relative to what the
user actually needs. When we're talking about shipping something with a 5mb
or 50mb default
Am 11. März 2010 12:00 schrieb Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
I think apps will have to deal with hitting quota as you describe,
however
with a normal desktop app you usually have a giant disk relative to what
the
user actually needs.
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
Yes, but I think there may be uses of things like storage for non-offline
uses (pre-fetching email attachments, saving an email that is in a draft
state etc.) If it's relatively harmless, like 1mb usage, I don't want to
pop up an infobar, I
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
AFAIK most browsers are setting a default quota for storage options that is
on the order of megabytes.
Could well be, indeed. It sounded like you'd done some thinking about
the size, and I was curious about how you came up with that number
2010/3/11 Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com:
I think of an infobar as relatively innocuous, and a good balance of
user awareness versus flow interruption, but I repeat my lack of
interaction design credentials!
Mark Pilgrim is trying to make his book, Dive Into HTML5, an offline
app. In the
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/3/11 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
Yes, but I think there may be uses of things like storage for non-offline
uses (pre-fetching email attachments, saving an email that is in a draft
state etc.) If
2010/3/11 Michael Nordman micha...@google.com:
Also, this is being discussed in terms of apps. Can more than one app be
hosted on the same site? And if so, how can their be stored resources be
distinquished?
Yes, but you have to manage conflicts yourself (frex by prefixing all
your
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a problem is
the notion of the opaqueness of storage quotas in all of the new storage
mechanisms (Local Storage, Web SQL Database, Web Indexed Database, the
2010/3/10 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a problem is
the notion of the opaqueness of storage quotas in all of the new storage
mechanisms (Local Storage,
Agree 100% (even with geolocation).
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 07:54 -0800, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a
problem is the notion of the opaqueness of storage quotas in
2010/3/10 Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org:
2010/3/10 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a problem is
the notion of the opaqueness of storage quotas in all of
2010/3/10 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
As I talk with more application developers (both within Google and at
large), one thing that consistently gets pointed out to me as a problem is
the notion of the opaqueness of storage quotas in all of the new storage
mechanisms (Local Storage,
18 matches
Mail list logo
