- From: Anne van Kesteren <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 04:46:11 -0800
- To: whatwg/storage <storage@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2021 12:46:23 UTC
I tend to agree with your assessment, but I would love to hear from @asutherland and maybe @janvarga about sharing `sessionStorage` across the process boundary. If `sessionStorage` has a different storage architecture from `localStorage` I wonder if it's worth salvaging or whether sessions should be reintroduced as part of buckets (and not have the problematic aspects there, such as cloning). -- 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/119#issuecomment-769028962
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2021 12:46:23 UTC