Live data from Hacker News

Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

github.com

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#51
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hidden?" Give IE some respect...its rendering may have been crap, but it had plenty of features like this for building robust web applications years before the cool kids realized that might be a good idea.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get at, evidently unsuccessfully. For all of IE's failings, it does seem to have been first to support an awful lot of scripting features. They've always been documented , but hardly anyone seems to know about them until the other browsers popularise them, and even then IE's implementation seems to be forgotten, presumably because APIs are nonstandard and the docs use differen…

Microsoft failed the dHTML buzzword campaign or didn't even care. Apple and Google did a much better job with HTML5.

dHTML+TIME could even use dynamic generated music

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX_Media

But I guess Microsoft is too obsessed with .Net and Silverlight now.

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#52

Anyone know of size limitations on this storage? I am in the middle of writing a jQuery plugin and storing data in cookies which have the 4KB size limitation (which resulted in me having to "chunk" the data across several cookies). This looks like the perfect alternative!

also be aware that data is getting submitted to your domain on every request -- not great for performance

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#53
post #26

It seems as though the author does not believe in semicolon use in Javascript. Looks interesting though.

I use semicolons when they're needed (for loops, multiple statements per line), and don't use them when they're not. The code becomes cleaner to my eyes.

They're always needed so the JavaScript can be run through a compressor for production deployment without breaking the code.

Beyond that you're using curly braces when they're not strictly required, which seems inconsistent. I would expect either both all the time or both only when strictly necessary.

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#54
post #14

Tested it on IE 6 and got: "Tests passed" So I guess it works . . . :-)

Yup, it works in IE6. I don't have access to IE5.5, would love to have someone test it.

Is there a significant amount of people out there who still use IE5.5?

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#55
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because it's a choice Edit: I misread "is" as "could be". It's a good thing to have because it could be a good thing to use. It may be a bad thing to have enabled by default, but it's a bad thing to omit outright.

The potential for abuse is staggering. Yes, it would be good to have to benign purposes, but unless you trust everyone on the internet to act honorably, it's a terrible idea .

Then disable it by default, but don't leave it out altogether.

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#56
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give IETester a whirl. IE 5.5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 preview render engines in a single executable. http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage

I'm not convinced that IETester changes the underlying APIs correctly. Because of bad experience with "Multiple IE" simulators in the past I don't test on anything but the real install.

Hi,

IETester hooking is not perfect yet, but the engine is the correct versioned engine used on each tab. You can find more information here :

http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HowDoesItWork

Regards.

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use semicolons when they're needed (for loops, multiple statements per line), and don't use them when they're not. The code becomes cleaner to my eyes.

They're always needed so the JavaScript can be run through a compressor for production deployment without breaking the code. Beyond that you're using curly braces when they're not strictly required, which seems inconsistent. I would expect either both all the time or both only when strictly necessary.

Surely if the language specification calls semicolons optional then any compressor worth its salt should honor that? The YUI Compressor, at least, copes with semicolon-devoid Javascript just fine.

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're always needed so the JavaScript can be run through a compressor for production deployment without breaking the code. Beyond that you're using curly braces when they're not strictly required, which seems inconsistent. I would expect either both all the time or both only when strictly necessary.

Surely if the language specification calls semicolons optional then any compressor worth its salt should honor that? The YUI Compressor, at least, copes with semicolon-devoid Javascript just fine.

That's the sufficiently smart compiler argument. The fact remains you have more options available to you for minifying if you don't consider semi-colons optional, naming one compressor that can deal doesn't change the fact that most can't.

Re: Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash

#60
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The potential for abuse is staggering. Yes, it would be good to have to benign purposes, but unless you trust everyone on the internet to act honorably, it's a terrible idea .

Then disable it by default, but don't leave it out altogether.

Can you give me an example of when it would ever be appropriate to turn something like that on?
Post reply on HN