w3c / webextensions

Charter and administrivia for the WebExtensions Community Group (WECG)
Other
578 stars 50 forks source link

Proposal: Increase maximum item size in Storage sync quotas #510

Open erosman opened 6 months ago

erosman commented 6 months ago

Proposal: Increase maximum item size in Storage sync quotas

There is already a discussions on increasing the "Maximum total size" from 100KB to 1MB in Discuss limits applied to storage.local and storage.sync API.

This proposal concentrates on the "Maximum item size", as also mentioned in https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/351#issuecomment-1426759250.

Storage quotas for sync data

Test Case

Syncing the following example would be within the "Maximum total size" allowed, however it fails due to the "Maximum item size".

The options are:

{
  "a": "... 1kb data ...",
  "b": "... 1kb data ...",
  "c": "... 50kb data ..."
}

Proposal

Increase the "Maximum item size" to the maximum possible under the "Maximum total size"

See also

Juraj-Masiar commented 6 months ago

I'm using storage.sync in several of my extensions and I highly support this upgrade. Although, to be realistic, 1MB may be too big upgrade for browser vendors. I would be happy even with 512KB or 256KB. The biggest issue for my cases are:

Rob--W commented 6 months ago

All vendors are against raising the maximum total size, but not immediately opposed to considering to raise the item sizes. Need to discuss internally.

dotproto commented 5 months ago

To add a bit of context, vendors are against raising total storage limits because of the impact this would have on their synchronization services. The sync storage area is primarily meant as a way for extensions to share configuration or settings data across logged in browsers. It is not meant as a general purpose storage solution. Developers that need a way to store and sync larger amounts of data should consider standing up their own backends or look into cloud storage solutions.

hanguokai commented 5 months ago

The original proposal explicitly said: This proposal concentrates on the "Maximum item size", not "Maximum total size". So I will open a new issue for "Maximum total size", and copy related comments to there.