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

Re: [chromium-html5] LocalStorage inside Worker

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:06:57 -0800
Message-ID: <4D264B11.6090902@jumis.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
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 GMT

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