W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [chromium-html5] LocalStorage inside Worker

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:02:40 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimrAgOBwZ3Ye45ak1UW+nJ2=iDQVFmTOfG6seCy@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Halim <felix.halim@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
(oops, apologies for not cleaning up the subject line before sending this!)

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:

> public-webapps is probably the better place for this email
>
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Felix Halim <felix.halim@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know this has been discussed > 1 year ago:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg14087.html
>>
>> I couldn't find the follow up, so I guess localStorage is still
>> inaccessible from Workers?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I have one other option aside from what mentioned by Jeremy:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg14075.html
>>
>> 5: Why not make localStorage accessible from the Workers as "read only" ?
>>
>> The use case is as following:
>>
>> First, the user in the main window page (who has read/write access to
>> localStorage), dumps a big data to localStorage. Once all data has
>> been set, then the main page spawns Workers. These workers read the
>> data from localStorage, process it, and returns via message passing
>> (as they cannot alter the localStorage value).
>>
>> What are the benefits?
>> 1. No lock, no deadlock, no data race, fast, and efficient (see #2 below).
>> 2. You only set the data once, read by many Worker threads (as opposed
>> to give the big data again and again from the main page to each of the
>> Workers via message).
>> 3. It is very easy to use compared to using IndexedDB (i'm the big
>> proponent in localStorage).
>>
>> Note: I was not following the discussion on the spec, and I don't know
>> if my proposal has been discussed before? or is too late to change
>> now?
>>
>
> I don't think it's too late or has had much discussion any time recently.
>  It's probably worth re-exploring.
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Felix Halim
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:04:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT