Re: Intent to Implement: Private Browsing Storage (IndexedDB, Blobs, etc)

This is great Kyle. Historically this has been one of the biggest requests that we've had from developers with regards to private browsing. I'm happy that we're finally addressing this use case. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Kyle Machulis wrote: > In bug 781982,

Re: Intent to Implement: Private Browsing Storage (IndexedDB, Blobs, etc)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Kyle Machulis > wrote: > > > AFAIK, Chrome's strategy for this is to just store everything in memory > and > > keep a fairly small size cap on it (something like

Re: Intent to Implement: Private Browsing Storage (IndexedDB, Blobs, etc)

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Kyle Machulis wrote: > AFAIK, Chrome's strategy for this is to just store everything in memory and > keep a fairly small size cap on it (something like 32mb?). > Really? Last I asked they said they basically created a new temporary

Intent to Implement: Private Browsing Storage (IndexedDB, Blobs, etc)

In bug 781982, we're planning on implementing IndexedDB capabilities in Private Browsing Mode. The current plan is to: - Store IDB databases, minus blobs, in memory for the lifetime of the private browsing session - Store blobs to disk, encrypted via a key that is only held in memory during the