W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [chromium-html5] LocalStorage inside Worker

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 09:06:38 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOuqQuD0+Vy0nudtW_VnkfSvEkoXzptg7aL2DC@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 8 January 2011 00:57, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com>
>  wrote:
> >>> I don't think localStorage should be (to web workers), but
> sessionStorage
> >>> seems
> >>> a reasonable request.
> > It's not arbitrary: the names "local" and "session" convey some meaning.
> > localStorage works well enough, out in the wild. sessionStorage is not in
> > wide use.
> >
> > I don't think it's restrictive, it just creates a wider implementation
> > divide between session and local.
> What I meant was: you said that you don't think localStorage should be
> available to workers, but I don't understand why.  Why should
> sessionStorage be available, but localStorage not?
> --
> Glenn Maynard
There is also the issue that current localStorage implementations may be
broken by multiple tabs/windows. To say it works well enough in the wild
seems to ignore this brokenness.

If access had to be from inside an "atomic" block (a callback from a single
storage-thread) then this would fix access from multiple tabs/windows as
well as from worker threads.

This could be implemented as a single threaded callback serialising access
to the storage, but implementers could choose to use Software Transactional
Memory techniques to give their browser a speed advantage.

Received on Saturday, 8 January 2011 09:07:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:15 UTC