Re: Transaction callback for localStorage mutex?

For those not following WhatWG: Ian just responded to the latest round of
localStorage feedback there and I just elaborated on my proposal.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:

> Of course, what's shipping in IE 8 is "broken" in that it doesn't support
> run to completion (and neither will Chrome 4).  So honestly I'm not super
> compelled by the "IE shipped" argument.
>
> I still think giving a close approximation to run to completion (repeatable
> reads semantics) + a callback for serializable behavior is the best corse
> forward at the moment.
>
> J
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Adam Barth wrote:
>> >
>> > I haven't been following the localStorage mutex discussion in detail,
>> > but have we already rejected the idea of having content specifically ask
>> > for the mutex via a transaction callback, similar to how web databases
>> > work?
>>
>> One of the limitations is we can't change the API (since it already
>> shipped in IE). If we could change the API, it'd be trivial to fix.
>>
>> --
>> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
>> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>>
>>
>