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

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

On a related note, it might even be possible that saving developers from
explicitly having to think about _any_ concurrency is actually hurting them
more than it's helping.  And I'm not just talking about the short term,
here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090904/cd7b1a60/attachment.htm>

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 19:00:19 UTC