W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2009

[whatwg] Installed Apps

From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:53:56 -0700
Message-ID: <f965ae410908131153s6316c43g806b84e17a0c754e@mail.gmail.com>
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.

-------------- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:15 UTC