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: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:24 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinmeL3qdy2qFGroLU4W=-26E6B+_NSwFMDTfKi5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
So what's the plan for localStorage in workers?

J

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:

> I think I already came to the same conclusion... JavaScript has no control
> over effects, which devalues STM. In the absence of effect control, apparent
> serialisation (of transactions) is the best you can do.
>
> What we need is a purely functional JavaScript, it makes threading so much
> easier ;-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Keean.
>
>
> On 10 January 2011 23:42, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>
>> STM is not a panacea. Read
>> http://www.bluebytesoftware.com/blog/2010/01/03/ABriefRetrospectiveOnTransactionalMemory.aspxif you haven't already.
>>
>> In Haskell, where you have powerful control over effects, it may work
>> well, but Javascript isn't anything like that.
>>
>> Rob
>> --
>> "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
>> they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
>> every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 14:42:33 GMT

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