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

Re: [chromium-html5] LocalStorage inside Worker

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 15:20:31 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGZE=H6OyAUQipCmuMMxH1r7ibEUm4dBdvv46p@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> 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> wrote:
>> > On , Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> 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?
>> >>>
>>
>> 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.

Why wouldn't that have the same threading issues as I described?

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:25:02 GMT

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