Add support for Chrome Web Apps

[sondreb]

Would it be possible to add support for Chrome Web Apps? So that the library can be used across different platforms, and if the code runs within a Chrome Web App, it would use chrome.storage.local and not window.localStorage.

[grevory]

I think it would. It's just another storage type.

[richarddavenport]

@grevory You accepting PR's for this?

[ealves-pt]

@richarddavenport feel free to open a PR. Any suggestion on how to tackle this?

[richarddavenport]

@ealves-pt and @grevory, one thing I'm seeing (finally looking at this) is that localStorage and sessionStorage return values immediately, which makes things pretty easy to work with. However, when using chrome.storage they return a callback. I think that having callbacks are good, but I could see how it might break some things. I think that if the code was refactored slightly it would make things more extendable and open up the possibility to use other storage use cases down the road. Right now I think adding chrome.storage would add some bloat, but refactoring could keep the code to a manageable size.

Let me know if you guys are willing to look at some of the code.

[grevory]

I've written a number of Chrome extensions so I do have interest in this.
On May 14, 2016 5:22 PM, "Richard Davenport" notifications@github.com
wrote:

@ealves-pt https://github.com/ealves-pt and @grevory
https://github.com/grevory, one thing I'm seeing (finally looking at
this) is that localStorage and sessionStorage return values immediately,
which makes things pretty easy to work with. However, when using
chrome.storage they return a callback. I think that having callbacks are
good, but I could see how it might break some things. I think that if the
code was refactored slightly it would make things more extendable and open
up the possibility to use other storage use cases down the road. Right now
I think adding chrome.storage would add some bloat, but refactoring could
keep the code to a manageable size.

Let me know if you guys are willing to look at some of the code.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#257 (comment)

[richarddavenport]

I've seen a couple of different suggestions for changing the api, but of course they may be breaking changes.
localStorageService.set(key, value, storageType));
and
localStorageService.setStorageType(storageType).set(key, value));
Both of these might be possible as optional and be implemented as non-breaking changes, but I'm not 100% sure.