W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Transaction callback for localStorage mutex?

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 02:06:02 -0800
Message-ID: <5dd9e5c50912020206i4f942462y8e83d21a75bb1196@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Of course, what's shipping in IE 8 is "broken" in that it doesn't support
run to completion (and neither will Chrome 4).  So honestly I'm not super
compelled by the "IE shipped" argument.

I still think giving a close approximation to run to completion (repeatable
reads semantics) + a callback for serializable behavior is the best corse
forward at the moment.

J

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Adam Barth wrote:
> >
> > I haven't been following the localStorage mutex discussion in detail,
> > but have we already rejected the idea of having content specifically ask
> > for the mutex via a transaction callback, similar to how web databases
> > work?
>
> One of the limitations is we can't change the API (since it already
> shipped in IE). If we could change the API, it'd be trivial to fix.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 10:07:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT