- From: Kevin Benson <kevin.m.benson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:05:43 -0400
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Jeremy Orlow<jorlow at chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow?<jorlow at chromium.org>?wrote: >> >>> Lastly, is navigator.getStorageUpdates() the right name for the function >>> that drops the lock? ?Why was it changed from navigator.releaseLock()? ?I >>> assume we're trying to avoid the word "lock", but the reason why you'd need >>> to call a function to get updates is not clear without understanding the >>> concept of a lock...so what's the point of making this so cryptic? >> >> Authors would be confused that there's no aquireLock() API. > > Good point. > 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? How about: commitStorageUpdates ... since a new transactor cannot write to storage until a commit point is reached by the current transactor finishing up and releasing the lock. -- -- -- -- ???? K e V i N /?????????\
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 04:05:43 UTC