- From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:56:04 -0400
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org, Mitch Zollinger <mzollinger@netflix.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Vijay Bharadwaj <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>
On Aug 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > Arun: While deriving from "Storage" is nice, I get the impression > WebStorage is the black sheep of web APIs at the moment - in part, due > to its synchronous nature. It seems overkill, but an alternative would > be to expose an entire IndexedDB IDBEnvironment on every Key. Am I > crazy for thinking that? > I don't think that the synchronous nature of WebStorage is what accords it any sort of "black sheep" status. Rather, I think that it gets a mixed reception owing to loyalists to the SQLite based API which Webkit-based browsers (and Opera) implemented. Those APIs are on life-support AFAICT. (Also, it seems that IndexedDB/WebStorage allows for asynchronous uses -- am I way off on this?) What I'd propose is taking advantage of the upcoming "joint sessions" (TPAC) and schedule a session (one hour meeting?) to meet with the WebApps WG and talk about IndexedDB. I'm not sure Jonas is attending, but I think other editors of the IndexedDB specification are attending. I'll also take an action to chase this reasoning up within Mozilla; others (MSFT, Google, Opera) should take similar action items :) My own $0.02 is that exposing an alternate storage environment on every Key may be a false friend, till we determine that it is necessary to replicate things for WebCrypto purposes only *(and it might be -- I'm just not sure yet). -- A*
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:56:35 UTC