- From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:42:58 -0700
We discussed this in more detail here: http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg at lists.whatwg.org/msg13799.html At the time, I suggested not protecting cookies with a mutex (allow asynchronous access - the current behavior on IE and Chrome), which made the monocles pop out of everyone's eyes :) -atw On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Jens Alfke <snej at google.com> wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Drew Wilson wrote: > > My recollection is that we prohibit worker access to cookies for exactly >> this reason (WorkerGlobalScope does not expose a "cookies" attribute). >> > > Looks like you're right; section 5 of the Web Workers spec says: > >> The DOM APIs (Node objects, Document objects, etc) are not available to >> workers in this version of this specification. >> >> and there's no defined way to access cookies except through Document. > Crisis averted. > > (If the spec does get modified to allow local-storage access from worker > threads, though, this same problem will arise, since they use the same > lock.) > > ?Jens -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090826/9b8a900b/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 14:42:58 UTC