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

[whatwg] Storage mutex feedback

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:12:26 -0300
Message-ID: <63df84f0908302112qcd4838ci5bf4befba2336d6d@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Kevin Benson wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> That could work too.
>
>
> Upon further consideration I've renamed getStorageUpdates() to
> yieldForStorageUpdates().

'yield' usually refers to halting execution. I would expect the above
name to stop the current thread and allow other threads to run. While
that is what could be happening here, I'm not sure that is the primary
function of the call.

I really liked Darin's (?) suggestion of allowStorageUpdates as that
seems to exactly describe the intended use of the function. We no
longer prevent other page from updating the storage.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 21:12:26 UTC

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