With many browsers adding proper local storage support (and with this whole HTML5 buzz), there is a lot of talk about offline web apps competing with desktop software. But, as a matter of fact - one quick "clear private data" on your browser (which a lot of people do) - clears all the local storage data.
I'm now thinking that local storage in browsers can at best be used to cache data temporarily before being sync-ed with the web server, but truly offline web applications can't rely on HTML5's local storage permanently due to the problem I outlined above.
Is there a scope for offline web applications that actually depend on data extensively?
My take on this is that the offline capability of online web apps can compete with desktop software, but not pure offline web-apps.
Why? Well, the major drawback of online web apps was what happens when you lose your network connection when doing any work. Seeing as this can be resolved now, the competition is truly on. Imagine editing a document online, then move around without internet, come back online and then sync the changes and continue to work as if nothing happened. That is truly awesome.
For this to work, the browser should allow to store data in a location that you can pick which would mean access to OS layer, which will probably not happen anytime soon...
Related
I had a doubt regarding HTML5 storage technologies like WebSQL, WebStorage/LocalStorage, and indexedDB and to a lesser extent appCache.
Considering the case of chrome (my default browser), these stores are maintained in chrome browser's own directory. Do they impact the starting-up time of the browser?
A colleague has said to experience browser slowing down or behaving in sluggish manner when a larger amount of data is stored.
Couldn't find references to how these technologies impact the browser working, so would love if any fellow-stacker could guide me.
Be careful : the WebSQL API is dead (it was based on sqlite instead of a generic API and so was judged not desirable by the Mozilla team, the Indexed Database API will be used instead but you should probably wait for it to be more supported).
LocalStorage is fine, I use it in all my web applications without problems nor measurable boot time. But keep it for parameters, preferences, and so on, as the only reliable storage is always server side. The local storage can be removed, lost, modified, not readable for many reasons (user uses another browser or computer for example). And it seems to me that a big local storage is a burden to the user and thus not very correct (which is probably the reason why this size is limited).
BTW, there is no reason a reasonnable local storage could slow in a measurable manner the launching of a browser.
I agree with dystroy; Normally the local storing is harmless if done the right way. Storing MASSIVE amounts of data in the browser on the other hand is quite discouraged. It won't slow down the browser performance overall but will slow down the web app using it (as far as I know, Chrome fetches the local storage values dynamically when the 'owner app' is called).
Is there a technical reason, why a Google Drive application must be installed through the Chrome Web Store (which severely limits the number of potential users)?
The reason that installation is required is to give users the ability to access applications from within the Google Drive user interface. Without installation, users would have no starting point for most applications, as they would not be able to start at a specific file, and then choose an application.
That said, I realize it can be difficult to work with in early development. We (the Google Drive team) are evaluating if we should remove this requirement or not. I suspect we'll have a final answer/solution in the next few weeks.
Update: We have removed the installation requirement. Chrome Web Store installation is no longer required for an app to work with a user's Drive transparently, but it is still required to take advantage of Google Drive UI integrations.
To provide the create->xxx behaviour that makes a new application document from the drive interface, and to be able to open existing documents from links, there must be some kind of manifest registered with Google's systems and some kind of agreement from the user that an application can access your documents and work with specific file types. There's little way around this when you think about the effects of not doing this.
That said, there are two high level issues that make for compatibility problems.
As the poster says, the requirement to install in the chrome store
severely limits the number of potential users.
But why? Why do the majority of Chrome Web Store applications say that they only work on Chrome? Most of these are wrappers to web applications that work on a range of browsers, yet you click through a selection and most display "works on chrome", aka only installs on chrome.
Before we launched our application on chrome we found that someone had created "xxxxxxx launcher" in the store, that simply forwards to our web app page. We're still wondering why it only "works on chrome". I suspect that some default template for the web store has:
"container" : "CHROME",
in it, which is the configuration option to say chrome only. That said, I can't find one, so I'm very confused why this is. It would be healthier if people picked Chrome because it's the better browser (which it is in a number of regards), not because their choice is limited if they don't. People can always write to the application vendor and ask if this limitation is really necessary.
The second thought is that a standardised manifest format across cloud storage providers would mean a much higher take up in web app vendors. Although, it isn't hugely complex to integrate, for example, with Google Drive, the back-end and ironing out the the details took over a week in total. Multiply that lots of storage providers and you have you lose an engineer for 2 months + the maintenance afterwards. The more than is common across vendor integration, the more likely it is to happen.
And while I'm on it, a JavaScript widget for opening and saving (I know Google have opening) by each cloud storage provider would improve integration by web app vendors. We should be using one storage providers across multiple applications, not one web application across multiple storage providers, the file UI should be common to the storage provider.
In order to sync with the local file system, one would need to install a browser plug-in in order to bridge the Web with the local computer. By default, Web applications don't have file I/O permissions on the user's hard drive for security reasons. Browser extensions, on the other hand, do not suffer from this limitation as it's assumed that when you, the user, give an application permission to be installed on your computer, you give it permissions to access more resources on the local computer.
Considering the add-on architectures for different browsers are different, Google first decided to build this application for their platform first. You can also find Google Drive in the Android/Play marketplace, one of Google's other app marketplaces.
In the future, if Google Drive is successful, there may very well be add-ons created for Firefox and Internet Explorer, but this of course has yet to be done and depends on whether or not Google either releases the API's to the public or internally makes a decision to develop add-ons for other browsers as well.
With HTML5's offline capabilities is it possible to create an app that will persist after the connection is lost and the browser is closed? Specifically, here's what I'd like to do:
Connect to the app while online. Download the entire app including a small database it runs on.
Close the browser and disconnect.
Open the browser again while offline and load the app from the local cache.
Thanks to Mark Pilgrim's excellent book I believe I have an idea of how to accomplish the first step, I'm mainly wondering if the last step is possible. If this is possible, I'm guessing it requires some configuration of the browser. Any settings I should be aware of that aren't obvious?
Thanks very much for any help offered.
The last step should be possible - it just depends on what extent you want to implement it to. To my knowledge it shouldn't require any browser settings. You just have to be aware of the limitations of local storage, which I believe is 5mb max at the moment (for most browsers). Obviously you'd have to perform the checks for such permissions as outlined int the Dive Into Html5 guide you linked.
The quickest and dirtiest way is to simply issue a GET request to your online app. If it responds correctly, then use the online version. If not, use the local cache. Just disguise the timeout/failed response as a 'loading' screen.
What is new in HTML 5’s “offline web applications” feature which was not already available in all browsers?
Offline caching is the job of the browser — how did it become a job of HTML?
A web cache is a mechanism for the
temporary storage (caching) of web
documents, such as HTML pages and
images, to reduce bandwidth usage,
server load, and perceived lag. A web
cache stores copies of documents
passing through it; subsequent
requests may be satisfied from the
cache if certain conditions are met.
As written in Wikipedia’s article for Web cache.
And this is written for offline web cache in the W3C website:
In order to enable users to continue
interacting with Web applications and
documents even when their network
connection is unavailable — for
instance, because they are traveling
outside of their ISP's coverage area —
authors can provide a manifest which
lists the files that are needed for
the Web application to work offline
and which causes the user's browser to
keep a copy of the files for use
offline.
What is HTML 5 doing better and different in caching?
Is it similar to offline mode in Internet Explorer 5? And can we cache the data beyond the limit of amount of space set in browser?
Please give me an example so that I can understand the difference of HTML 5 offline cache, and browser caches.
Web browser caching is when browsers decide to store files locally to improve performance. HTTP allows web servers to suggest browsers how long to store the files for, and allows browsers to ask the server whether a file has changed (so that they can avoid re-downloading it).
However, it’s not designed to reliably store assets required by an offline application. It’s ultimately up to the browser whether, and for how long, it caches the files. And browsers will often stop using their cached version if they can’t contact the server to check that it’s up-to-date.
The HTML5 offline web applications spec provides web authors with the ability to tell browsers what to store for offline access, and requires browsers to keep those files up-to-date when it is online. It also provides a DOM property that tells the developer whether the browser is online or offline, and events that fire when the online status changes.
As Peeter describes in his answer, this allows web app developers to store user-inputted data whilst the user is offline, then sync it with the server when they’re online again. The developer has to do this storage and syncing manually, as the browser only provides the events indicating online status, but if the browser also supports localStorage, the developer can store the data there.
I can do no better than point you to the relevant chapter of Dive into HTML5: http://diveintohtml5.ep.io/offline.html
You can now cache dynamic data, instead of just js/css/html files / images.
Lets say you've got a todo list application open in your browser. You're connected to the internet and you're adding a bunch of stuff you have to do.
Boom, you're on an airplane without a connection. You've got 6 hours of time to kill so you decide to get some work done. You finish all of the things on your todo list (the list was still open in your browser). You select all of the items and change their state to "finished".
Your plane lands, you open up your laptop and refresh the page. All the changes you did without a connection are now synced to the server as you have a internet connection now.
I've started looking into HTML web database storage for some Chrome extension I'm working on, and it made me wonder - Who should be cleaning abandoned web databases? As opposed to desktop apps, there's no uninstaller for a web site. And as opposed to regular cookies, web databases can be much larger than just 4KB.
I can imagine some browsers or addons might give advanced users a way to clean up locally stored data, but I can't imagine my parents doing that. What will prevent web sites from clogging their hard drive once this feature is commonly used? Is there any way honest and responsible web sites can have their local data removed once they are not used anymore?
On the two websites and 4 apps I use html5 local storage in, I offer an option somewhere (off the About page, or in account settings, or a link at the bottom of the page) which gives you the ability to remove the local database and key-value pairs, as well as the option to opt-out of the site using it.
It'll be persistent, just like cookies. The difference with cookies is that you can store much more data and no expire date can be given.
Firefox has an option to clean those information automatically (Offline storage)