On 7/20/09 4:32 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
-1 No, we should keep widget.preferences. If a UA wants to, it can simply implement it using: widget.preferences = window.localStorage;
"If the UA wants to" seems kinda bad... I think the spec should say something concrete about this. Either they are the same, or they are not.
We can't have on some platforms authors expecting values being simultaneously saved to widget.preferences and window.localStorage, and on others not.
If it doesn't, the UA can do its own implementation, which we do for example, as for our UA localStorage is not an appropriate implementation, as our users are more likely to interact with the same widget using multiple browsers on multiple machines.
Ok, I guess this means that your implementation of widget.preferences is synchronizing multiple clients through some kind of server-sent events or polling.
However, can't you have a some kind of "synchronizer" that listens for Storage event and the sends those to the server to propagate to dependent clients?
We can also implement widget.preferences. We can't reimplement the user's browser's WebStorage impl (if it has one).
Ok, understood. That makes sense from a "Wookie" perspective.
For more detailed arguments for keeping preferences, just search back through the list ;-) (We've already argued this one loads of times, Marcos! Why has it come up again?)
I guess it helps me understand the problem and articulate use cases... need a "Wookie" reminder to keep me in check :)
Kind regards, Marcos
