On 1/6/11 2:57 PM, Keean Schupke wrote: > There is always Software Transactional Memory that provides a safe > model for memory shared between threads. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory > > On 6 January 2011 22:44, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com > <mailto:joao.eiras@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On , Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow > <jorlow@chromium.org <mailto:jorlow@chromium.org>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Felix Halim > <felix.halim@gmail.com <mailto: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? > >>> > > Exposing the web platform to shared memory multithreading is the exact > opposite of simple. > Shouldn't sessionStorage be made accessible? I don't think localStorage should be (to web workers), but sessionStorage seems a reasonable request. -Charles
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:08:27 UTC