W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2009

[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:47:00 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0903201347x1a1b21ebjf23a03809532c243@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at google.com> wrote:
> What is the need for localStorage access within workers? ?Technically if
> someone really needed to access it, they could always have a function in the
> web page for accessing it and then use postMessage. ?In other words, they
> could build their own ad-hoc async API pretty easily. ?Another alternative
> is to just build an async API into the spec (and remove?synchronous?access
> to localStorage).
> Thoughts?

I do think it would be great if workers had access to some type of
structured storage. However I agree that the fact that both the main
thread and workers have synchronous access to the same storage is not
acceptable since that means that we're violating the
shared-nothing-message-passing design that makes workers not have to
deal with locks and other traditional multithread hazards.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 13:47:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:47:49 GMT