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();

Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 07:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 13:55:39 UTC