3 ms·
Basic UI features shouldn't need storage. In-memory or in the URL is enough. If you put it in storage then it is actually a (cookie) session, with some sort of
by the_gipsy 4y ago
Basic UI features shouldn't need storage. In-memory or in the URL is enough. If you put it in storage then it is actually a (cookie) session, with some sort of configuration - that's not "basic UI".
- zerocrates 4y agoIf you define "basic" as not including "this remembers how you had it set last time" then, sure. "In the URL" works for that, sort of, though not if you want it to still work for users that are just re-finding you through Google or typing in your address.
- the_gipsy 4y ago> "this remembers how you had it set last time" That is a session.
- ricardobeat 4y agoAnd? All desktop and mobile apps are able to persist data. The purpose of disabling cookies was privacy protection, not a 'storing local data is a crime' stance.
- temporallobe 4y agoSure, in-memory works until the page is refreshed. Storing data in the URL is an option, but also messy and cumbersome to manage especially with bookmarks. localStorage / sessionStorage is clean and dead simple, and it actually allows an app to be truly stateful, so it’s quite unfortunate that the trend is to avoid the “evils” of storing any kind of data on the client. What, should we go back to the days of session IDs and server-side storage for even the most trivial data?
- the_gipsy 4y agoThis is nothing new: on a webapp, you may not have a session. That's all.