- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:19:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9880
Summary: noticed the comment about per-source mutexes for
storage. If that's not desired, an approach that has
worked well in other API designs is an
application-selectable mutex per context. Thus, each
localStorage object could have a "_mutex" property,
which by
Product: HTML WG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#man
ually-releasing-the-storage-mutex
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson)
AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org
QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Section:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#manually-releasing-the-storage-mutex
Comment:
noticed the comment about per-source mutexes for storage. If that's not
desired, an approach that has worked well in other API designs is an
application-selectable mutex per context. Thus, each localStorage object could
have a "_mutex" property, which by default is initialized to (for example) the
name of the remote serving host. If the application code assigns another
string to the _mutex property, that creates a new mutex shared by all contexts
that have that property value. If the application code assigns null to the
property, operations are not interlocked (and thus may race with any other
operation, even interlocked operations). This probably still has some
implementation issues (it's probably additional complexity than the per-source
mutex), but it allows applications to decide whether they want performance or
safety, with the default being safety.
Posted from: 208.80.119.3
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:19:37 UTC