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

Re: [chromium-html5] LocalStorage inside Worker

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:53:47 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ixq=dWmMt7B5KiEKoh+UdjgPiUUXnMVuQgDYG@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, robert@ocallahan.org, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11 January 2011 22:37, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
> > Would each 'name' storage have its own thread to improve parallelism?
>
> Your vocabulary is a bit off since from an API point of view, storage
> areas don't have threads, the execution environments in workers and
> windows do
>

They could have, as you want to serialise access, that is equivalent to
having one thread per storage area that executes each of the callbacks from
its own event queue...


>
> But if your question is weather one worker can open the storage named
> "foo", while another window or worker is holding the storage named
> "bar" open, then the answer is yes.
>
> > would:
> > withNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...});
> > make more sense from a naming point of view?
>
> I have a different association for 'with', especially in context of
> JavaScript, so I prefer 'get'. But others feel free to express an
> opinion.
>

Sure, but get for me is always in the context of getters and setters,

var x = object.getProperty();
object.setProperty(x);


Cheers,
Keean.
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 07:54:22 GMT

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