-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Consider renaming " the Origin Private File System" in anticipation of Storage Buckets #92
Comments
"Sandboxed" is the generic adjective that comes to mind. I'll see if I can dig up where we ended up with OPFS... |
Yeah I think it may have at one point been referred to as the "sandboxed file system" in the spec, since the |
Hmmm, WICG/file-system-access#199 moved explicitly away from "sandboxed"... |
WICG/file-system-access#174 (comment) is the comment where @inexorabletash suggested the current name instead of sandboxed. |
Although to be fair, that was more a comment about the javascript API (which changed since then anyway) rather than the spec language. |
Nice digging! And yeah, that explains why we avoided "Sandboxed" there - just wanting to not enshrine that term in the API itself without further discussion. So... no strong reason to not use the term if we want it for describing the concept. |
I would strongly suggest avoiding using the term "sandbox". It has a very specific meaning in the HTML and CSP space that is distinct from OPFS' characteristics. I believe there is also a browser vendor using the term "Privacy Sandbox" recently that also seems to be distinct from OPFS and could result in confusion. |
(Default) Bucket File System? (As per https://storage.spec.whatwg.org/#model.) |
I really like this! It leverages the containment metaphor of the model well, which helps avoid the ambiguity that @a-sully pointed out exists in the first comment for OPFS. Specifically, it seems like it can be read as:
I also think using the "bucket" term here is much better than using the "bottle" term. From my perspective, the non-bucket terms exist to be unambiguous with an inherent containment relationship, but in general the only term that we really want content authors to know about are buckets. (Also, bottle can regrettably have alcohol-related connotations, which is another reason to limit its use to an unambiguous term in the spec.) |
Sounds good to me! Unless there's any objections, I'll put up a PR to change this in the spec soon
+1 |
I.e., rename OPFS to BucketFS. Fixes #92.
whatwg/fs#129 renames the Origin Private File System to the Bucket File System See whatwg/fs#92 for context
… File System whatwg/fs#129 renames the Origin Private File System to the Bucket File System See whatwg/fs#92 for context SHA: 3700ab8 Reason: push, by @a-sully Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
The Storage Buckets API (see https://wicg.github.io/storage-buckets/explainer) will allow sites to partition their storage into a number of buckets. Each storage bucket will store data associated with established storage APIs such as IndexedDB, CacheStorage, and, you guessed it, File System. Soon, a site may have multiple instances of "the Origin Private File System."
Should we change the name of the OPFS to reflect this? If so, does anyone have suggestions? Or does the OPFS name have enough behind it that changing it would be more confusing to developers than leaving things as they are?
At the very least, we could change "the Origin Private File System" to "an Origin Private File System"? "Private" doesn't necessarily imply exclusivity... Sure, "Origin" is technically no longer correct, but maybe that distinction doesn't actually matter?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: