- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:02:40 +0000
- To: Felix Halim <felix.halim@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimrAgOBwZ3Ye45ak1UW+nJ2=iDQVFmTOfG6seCy@mail.gmail.com>
(oops, apologies for not cleaning up the subject line before sending this!) On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > public-webapps is probably the better place for this email > > On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Felix Halim <felix.halim@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I know this has been discussed > 1 year ago: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg14087.html >> >> I couldn't find the follow up, so I guess localStorage is still >> inaccessible from Workers? >> > > Yes. > > >> I have one other option aside from what mentioned by Jeremy: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg14075.html >> >> 5: Why not make localStorage accessible from the Workers as "read only" ? >> >> The use case is as following: >> >> First, the user in the main window page (who has read/write access to >> localStorage), dumps a big data to localStorage. Once all data has >> been set, then the main page spawns Workers. These workers read the >> data from localStorage, process it, and returns via message passing >> (as they cannot alter the localStorage value). >> >> What are the benefits? >> 1. No lock, no deadlock, no data race, fast, and efficient (see #2 below). >> 2. You only set the data once, read by many Worker threads (as opposed >> to give the big data again and again from the main page to each of the >> Workers via message). >> 3. It is very easy to use compared to using IndexedDB (i'm the big >> proponent in localStorage). >> >> Note: I was not following the discussion on the spec, and I don't know >> if my proposal has been discussed before? or is too late to change >> now? >> > > I don't think it's too late or has had much discussion any time recently. > It's probably worth re-exploring. > > >> Thanks, >> >> Felix Halim >> >
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 20:04:33 UTC