- From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:53:56 -0700
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Mike Wilson <mikewse at hotmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think Drew wanted handling of > "live" objects, where each window gets access to the same > concrete objects (possibly protected by private proxy > objects) so the graph can be walked without cloning. To be honest, I'm not really a good spokesperson for this issue, as most of my thinking has been around shared workers which have all the same drawbacks for data sharing that WebStorage has. I was just saying that I understand the problem that the shared context is trying to address. I personally think that part of the problem can be overcome using the existing tools, although with more effort on the app side than a simple shared context solution. > > Drew: are you thinking that the same object graph also > makes up the data cache between sessions? If not, then > persistence is not a must-have for this use case so the > area of ideas could well expand outside webstorage. I think ideally serialization would happen only when data needs to be persisted. If I have a data structure that I want to share with other open windows, I shouldn't have to persist it to accomplish this, and I certainly shouldn't have to re-serialize it every time I want to make a minor change. But, again, I'm just speaking in the abstract - the folks proposing shared context (Dmitry) should probably chime in here as they've thought about this problem much more than I have. -atw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090813/14aa5b34/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 11:53:56 UTC