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

[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes

From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:07:22 -0700
Message-ID: <fa2eab050903221207n7fd34e28hfc0eae813406d25@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote:
> > I've thought about this more, and I'm afraid that if you start making the
> > API cumbersome (forcing only async access) then apps are just going to
> use
> > document.cookies instead of localStorage. I'd hate to see us radically
> > change the API to support the worker case - I'd rather get rid of
> > localStorage support from workers, or else just enforce a max time that a
> > worker can hold the lock.
> I don't believe that. Adding one async callback is no inconvenience
> compared to the sad farce that is the document.cookie "API". Also,
> localstorage has many benefits including structured storage and not
> getting sent to the server in every request.

I don't see how denying workers solves the problem. In a multi-threaded
browser, this has to be resolved reasonably even in the absence of workers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090322/641126c0/attachment.htm>
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 12:07:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:48 UTC