- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:13:26 -0700
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: > 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 When discussing this standard we have to recognize that not all browsers actually have a "main thread". Time will tell if more or less browsers of the future will have multi-threaded architectures, but the trend has been for more I think. Any aspects of the spec that asserts or assumes a "main thread" is questionable.
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 14:13:26 UTC