[whatwg] Storage mutex and cookies can lead to browser deadlock

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com>wrote:

> > Shared worker access would be a plus.
> Indeed. The lack of access to LocalStorage in 'workers' forces developers
> to use the more difficult database api for all storage needs, and to roll
> their own change event mechanisms (based on postMessage). Thats a bunch of
> busy work if a name/value pair schema is all your app really needs.

For the record, all the developers I've talked to about the current state of
AppCache+storage+workers have been VERY disheartened.  IE and Firefox have
no intentions of supporting WebDatabase any time soon.  localStorage is not
available from workers.  AppCache requires apps to be 100% client based (the
server needs to server static pages and the logic must be in JS) if you have
any personalization/authentication.  Workers are only accessible via message
passing.  Sure, we can imagine ways that nearly every application _can_ be
written in such environments, but in many cases these designs are quite
different from what web developers are used to.

I think there are good reasons for all the design decisions we're making,
but I'm worried we're not looking at the big picture enough.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090904/e38eb25a/attachment.htm>

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 18:59:01 UTC