- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:14:20 -0500
- To: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, robert@ocallahan.org, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote: > IMHO, if the global lock on localStorage implemented, then I think it is > acceptable to say localStorage may have poor performance with multiple > windows/tabs open. If you want better then use IndexedDB. Performance isn't the problem. The problems, as I understand them, are: 1: the global lock is simply not being implemented; it's too hard to implement this sort of locking from within a running UI thread properly, and 2: unlike scripts in the main thread, a worker thread may not return to caller regularly; that's when the storage mutex is unlocked, which means there's no proepr way to unlock the storage mutex from a thread. The callback API addresses both of these problems. On 12 January 2011 10:21, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > Why not just use a small library (like lawnchair) on top of IndexedDB > instead? This doesn't seem like it's worth the surface area at all... This sounds more like an argument for deprecating the entire Storage API. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 11:14:53 UTC