I think it ties in with the general theme of Elm trying to guide you into 
making the right choices - if there's no real use case for LocalStorage 
other than using it as a cache, why expose the low level bindings and allow 
people to shoot themselves in the foot with them?

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 7:22:44 AM UTC, David Andrews wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing me to that, and the Justification section therein 
> answers my next question.  However, I don't see why it makes sense to 
> conflate the use of the web storage API with a cache pattern.  It seems to 
> me that the best way to do this would be to make the low-level API 
> available and implement a cache on top of that.
>
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 2:55:42 AM UTC-4, Peter Damoc wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:38 AM, David Andrews <rand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would really like to be able to use local storage in elm.  There have 
>>> been several libraries that implement this, but none of them have been 
>>> updated to elm 0.17.  So far the advice I've seen is just to wait, but I'm 
>>> tired of waiting.
>>>
>>
>> It's not really storage when you have a hard limit of 5MB of data. 
>> persistent-cache <https://github.com/elm-lang/persistent-cache> will 
>> probably end up covering the uses for that kind of functionality. 
>>
>> You should be using ports but if you really really want to use the 
>> unreleased library, fork it, tag it with 1.0.0 and install it with 
>> elm-github-install. 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> There is NO FATE, we are the creators.
>> blog: http://damoc.ro/
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm 
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to