Hi Tony > This subject is very interesting and the afformentioned plugin may have its > place. The utility of saving in the browser reliably is very powerful, as a > result I hope the conversation continues to this end. Looking at pouchdb that > uses indexdb seems particularly strong especialy in firefox which will prompt > if you exceed the basic limits on top of your local disk availability.
It appears that Mozilla plan to do the same prompting for localstorage quotas: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IndexedDB_API/Browser_storage_limits_and_eviction_criteria For a long time, the problem with IndexedDB is that it wasn't supported on all browsers, in particular Safari took a long time to implement it and then for years their implementation was so bug ridden that nobody could use it. That's why PouchDB for years shipped with two storage adaptors: IndexedDB and the weird and incompatible database supported by old Safaris. Now the situation is a little different and it appears that we do have reasonable cross-browser support for IndexedDB: https://caniuse.com/#feat=indexeddb But I don't think it's worth switching from LocalStorage for us. The main advantages of IndexedDB over LocalStorage is that it is a full database with querying capabilities, but in our application those features aren't used. > I read the following; > > In Firefox, PouchDB uses IndexedDB. Though Firefox has no upper limit besides > disk space, if your application wishes to store more than 50MB locally, > Firefox will ask the user using a non-modal dialog to confirm that this is > okay. > > It is true that other local save mechanisms and browsers are much less > reliable because they treat local storage more like a cache, its disposable > in some circumstances. I don't think the size limit is the sticking point with browser storage: much more serious constraints are the risk of eviction and the privacy implications. > Given my expierience with variouse cloud services that have local and offline > services I am confident there are reliable solutions available, we just need > to find them, options that have a low or zero complexity to the user. These browser storage technologies are pretty well understood, and the roles it can play are clear: caching material that has been retrieved from a server, caching stuff that will be sent to a server, and remembering settings. For us, it's useful in some situations, but it's not a universal panacea to the challenges of saving changes. Best wishes Jeremy. > > Regards > Tony > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TiddlyWiki" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/cdba024d-1b0a-44a7-9f5e-6d406a86ba33%40googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/03210791-1416-4ABB-92C1-70166FDE7FA2%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
