Re: [whatwg/storage] Allow 'session' bucket (#71)

I also don't like the idea of expanding the copying semantics beyond sessionStorage.  There are both implementation and conceptual complexities that would be hard to be address and don't seem justified.

What if the browsing context group owns the browsing session storage map?  That way the auxiliary browsing contexts have live access to the same storage as their browsing context opener.  This could be exposed on globals as `navigator.storage.sessionBucket` and perhaps even to ServiceWorkers as `Client.storageBucket`.

If the auxiliary browsing context doesn't want this helpful feature, then it could either use the proposed multiple storage bucket mechanism somehow, or (worse idea) there could be a separate storage map for each top-level browsing context individually and both are accessible.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/storage/issues/71#issuecomment-622066221