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

[whatwg] localStorage mutex - a solution?

From: Rob Ennals <rob.ennals@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:15:07 -0800
Message-ID: <A9F21DE2-86D6-4EE5-95A1-A560A0C02FD4@gmail.com>
I suspect my suggested spec line was insufficiently precise. How about  
this:

"the user agent MUST NOT release the storage mutex between calls to  
local storage, except that the user agent MAY release the storage  
mutex on any API operation"

We'd still need to define what "API operation" means, and I'm sure  
this could be worded better, but hopefully this makes the basic idea  
clearer.

-Rob

On Nov 4, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Mike Shaver <mike.shaver at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Rob Ennals <rob.ennals at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> Or to put it another way: if the thread can't call an API then it  
>> can't
>> block waiting for another storage mutex, thus deadlock can't occur,  
>> thus we
>> don't need to release the storage mutex.
>
> Right, but the spec text there doesn't prevent the UA from releasing
> more than in that scenario, which seems like it's not an improvement
> over where we are right now: unpredictable consistency.  Existing racy
> implementations like in IE would be conformant, so developers can't
> count on the script-sequenced-storage-ops pattern providing
> transactionality.
>
> More likely, though, _I_'m missing something...
>
> Mike
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 15:15:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:18 UTC