[Greasemonkey] Is better persistent storage needed?

[Aaron Boodman]

I think that GM_getValue and GM_setValue are abstract enough so that
if we ever need to change the storage mechanism it can be done without
disturbing people too much.

On 5/5/05, Jeremy Dunck <jdunck at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/05, Jeremy Dunck <jdunck at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/5/05, Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma <lists at atrus.org> wrote:
> > > Actually, it might be nice to provide some simple caching so scripts
> > > don't pound sites so much. Maybe authors should just be careful or setup
> > > a proxy webservice (e.g. a central site could scrape info for Book Burro
> > > and cache it).
> >
> > The web already does this.  Or do you mean a cache should be set up to
> > violate HTTP caching rules?
> >
> 
> Err, sorry, that wasn't very constructive.
> 
> For relatively static content, the suggestion to use Coral CDN is great.
> 
> For more dynamic data (restricted by http headers) cache isn't appropriate.
> 
> Some sites would greatly benefit by setting up cache with a maximum
> allowable cache; that is, some sites get 1000 hits per second, and
> should probably allow a 1 second cache, even on dynamic data.
> 
> At any rate, I don't see how a cache could be set up that would work
> well for sites that specificly deny cachability.
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>