- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:19:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9880 Summary: noticed the comment about per-source mutexes for storage. If that's not desired, an approach that has worked well in other API designs is an application-selectable mutex per context. Thus, each localStorage object could have a "_mutex" property, which by Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: Other URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#man ually-releasing-the-storage-mutex OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#manually-releasing-the-storage-mutex Comment: noticed the comment about per-source mutexes for storage. If that's not desired, an approach that has worked well in other API designs is an application-selectable mutex per context. Thus, each localStorage object could have a "_mutex" property, which by default is initialized to (for example) the name of the remote serving host. If the application code assigns another string to the _mutex property, that creates a new mutex shared by all contexts that have that property value. If the application code assigns null to the property, operations are not interlocked (and thus may race with any other operation, even interlocked operations). This probably still has some implementation issues (it's probably additional complexity than the per-source mutex), but it allows applications to decide whether they want performance or safety, with the default being safety. Posted from: 208.80.119.3 -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:19:37 UTC