- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:54:49 -0700
Is there any data (or any way to collect the data) on how much of the web IE and Chrome's current behavior has broken? Given that there hasn't been panic in the streets, I'm assuming approximately 0%? Given that web developers have never had any guarantees for cookie access/setting in terms of network communications and given that (it sounds like) it won't break the web, maybe we should ditch the idea of locking during cookie access/setting? On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote: > 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/20090826/16f4f961/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 14:54:49 UTC