- From: Darin Fisher <darin@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:13:20 -0700
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Darin Fisher <darin at google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org>wrote: >> >>> >>> But getStorageUpdates is still not the right name for it. The only way >>> that there'd be any updates to get is if, when you call the function, >>> someone else takes the lock and makes some updates. Maybe it should be >>> yieldStorage (or yieldStorageMutex)? In other words, maybe the name should >>> imply that you're allowing concurrent updates to happen? >>> >> >> I thought that's what getStorageUpdates implied :-). >> >> > The getStorageUpdates name seems pretty decent to me when considering it > from the perspective of the caller. The caller is saying that they are OK > with being able to see changes made to the localStorage by "other threads." > This cleverly avoids the need to talk about locks, which seems like a good > thing. It is okay for there to be no updates to storage. > > -Darin > What about allowStorageUpdates? -Darin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090826/f91a4f73/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 13:13:20 UTC