- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:01:11 +0000
- To: Felix Halim <felix.halim@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTim6LTBzjZaWvqYL2mhqnzw2wPiLoW5ZoX4ccYpT@mail.gmail.com>
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 20:06:31 UTC