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

Re: Web Storage Mutex

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:51:08 -0800
Message-ID: <5dd9e5c50912110251t7812ddd3ufffeb3aa0a798cbc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joran Greef <joran@sexbyfood.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Joran Greef <joran@sexbyfood.com> wrote:

> "The use of the storage mutex to avoid race conditions is currently
> considered by certain implementors to be too high a performance burden, to
> the point where allowing data corruption is considered preferable.
> Alternatives that do not require a user-agent-wide per-origin script lock
> are eagerly sought after."
>
> It's not a question of mutex versus data corruption, but of implementation:
>
> Database storage is served by SQLite. LocalStorage would be better served
> by Tokyo Cabinet: http://1978th.net/tokyocabinet/. I doubt the current
> localStorage implementation is better than the current Tokyo Cabinet
> implementation.
>

The issue has nothing to do with SQLite.  If you support run-to-completion
(i.e. require serialization) and can't abort and retry a transaction (which
the LocalStorage API doesn't support) then there's no way around locking as
far as I know.  If you're arguing there is, can you please explain how
(rather than linking to a rather large document)?

Thanks,
J
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 10:52:00 GMT

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