Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-04-23 Thread Nikunj Mehta
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Michael Nordman wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Clement mi...@google.com wrote: FWIW, the transient vs. permanent storage support is exactly why I eagerly await an implementation of EricU's Filesystem API. Being able to guarantee that the UA

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-04-23 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote: On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Michael Nordman wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Clement mi...@google.com wrote: FWIW, the transient vs. permanent storage support is exactly why I eagerly await an

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-04-23 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote: Could we create an additional optional parameter for an open request with the type of permanence required? Or is it not a good idea? I don't think we can expose the type of permanence to the user in any sort of sane way.

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-04-23 Thread Shawn Wilsher
On 4/23/2010 7:39 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: Could we create an additional optional parameter for an open request with the type of permanence required? Or is it not a good idea? I haven't talked to anyone at Mozilla that thinks that having permanent and non-permanent-but-possibly-long-lasting

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-04-23 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote: On 4/23/2010 7:39 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: Could we create an additional optional parameter for an open request with the type of permanence required? Or is it not a good idea? I haven't talked to anyone at Mozilla