On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 1/6/11 2:57 PM, Keean Schupke wrote: > > There is always Software Transactional Memory that provides a safe model for > memory shared between threads. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory > On 6 January 2011 22:44, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On , Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> 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? >> >>> >> >> Exposing the web platform to shared memory multithreading is the exact >> opposite of simple. > > Shouldn't sessionStorage be made accessible? > > I don't think localStorage should be (to web workers), but sessionStorage > seems > a reasonable request. Why wouldn't that have the same threading issues as I described? / JonasReceived on Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:25:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:15 UTC