[whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies andlocalStorage

Interesting. I've been following this discussion as my
experience is that it is *extremely* hard to make an
invisible locking mechanism that is to provide both 
consistency and performance (no lockouts). 
So far it seems a silver bullet hasn't been found.

Your suggestion is in line with what I would expect from a 
solution that makes a "best effort" compromise between the
multi-tab browsing experience and the burden put on 
application authors.

What if cookies are accessed between beginTransaction() and
commitTransaction(), would it make sense to throw for 
updates with side-effects here as well? (Even though this
would not be the case if done outside the transaction.)
In some cases it may be helpful to get this "side-effect
notification" for cookies as well...

Best regards
Mike Wilson

Chris Jones wrote:
> I'd like to propose that HTML5 specify different schemes than a 
> conceptual global storage mutex to provide consistency guarantees for 
> localStorage and cookies.
> 
> Cookies would be protected according to Benjamin Smedberg's 
> post in the 
> "[whatwg] Storage mutex and cookies can lead to browser deadlock" 
> thread.  Roughly, this proposal would give scripts a 
> consistent view of 
> document.cookie until they completed.  AIUI this is stronger 
> consistency 
> than Google Chrome provides today, and anecdotal evidence 
> suggests even 
> their weaker consistency hasn't "broken the web."
> 
> localStorage would be changed in a non-backwards-compatible way.  I 
> believe that web apps can be partitioned into two classes: those that 
> have planned for running concurrently (single-event-loop or not) in 
> multiple "browsing contexts", and those that haven't.  I 
> further posit 
> that the second class would break when run concurrently in multiple 
> contexts regardless of multiple event loops, and thus 
> regardless of the 
> storage mutex.  Even in the single-event-loop world, sites 
> not prepared 
> to be loaded in multiple tabs can stomp each other's data even though 
> script execution is atomic.  (I wouldn't dare use my bank's 
> website in 
> two tabs at the same time in a single-event-loop browser.)  In other 
> words, storage mutex can't help the second class of sites.
> 
> (I also believe that there's a very large, third class of pages that 
> work "accidentally" when run concurrently in multiple contexts, even 
> though they don't plan for that.  This is likely because they 
> don't keep 
> quasi-persistent data on the client side.)
> 
> Based on that, I believe localStorage should be designed with 
> the first 
> class of web apps (those that have considered data consistency across 
> multiple concurrent contexts) in mind, rather than the second 
> class.  Is 
> a conceptual global storage mutex the best way for, say, gmail to 
> guarantee consistency of its e-mail/contacts database?  I 
> don't believe 
> so: I think that a transactional localStorage is preferable. 
> Transactional localStorage is easier for browser vendors to implement 
> and should result in better performance for web apps in multi-process 
> UAs.  It's more of a burden on web app authors than the 
> hidden storage 
> mutex, but I think the benefits outweigh the cost.
> 
> I propose adding the functions
> 
>    window.localStorage.beginTransaction()
>    window.localStorage.commitTransaction()
> or
>    window.beginTransaction()
>    window.commitTransaction()
> 
> (The latter might be preferable if we later decide to add 
> more resources 
> with transactional semantics.)
> 
> localStorage.getItem(),. setItem(), .removeItem(), and .clear() would 
> remain specified as they are today.  beginTransaction() would do just 
> that, open a transaction.  Calling localStorage.*() outside 
> of an open 
> transaction would cause a script exception to be thrown; this would 
> unfortunately break all current clients of localStorage.  
> There might be 
> cleverer ways to mitigate this breakage by a UA pretending not to 
> support localStorage until a script called beginTransaction().
> 
> yieldForStorageUpdates() would no longer be meaningful and should be 
> removed.
> 
> A transaction would successfully "commit", atomically applying its 
> modifications to localStorage, if localStorage was not 
> modified between 
> beginTransaction() and commitTransaction().  Note that a transaction 
> consisting entirely of getItem() could fail just as those actually 
> modifying localStorage.  If a transaction failed, the UA 
> would throw a 
> TransactionFailed exception to script.  The UA would be 
> allowed to throw 
> this exception at any time between beginTransaction() and 
> commitTransaction().
> 
> There are numerous ways to implement transactional semantics. 
> Single-event-loop UAs could implement beginTransaction() and 
> commitTransaction() as no-ops.  Multi-event-loop UAs could reuse the 
> global storage mutex if they had already implemented that 
> (beginTransaction() == lock, commitTransaction() == unlock).
> 
> Some edge cases:
> 
>   * calling commitTransaction() without beginTransaction() 
> would throw 
> an exception
> 
>   * transactions would not be allowed to be nested, even on different 
> localStorage DBs.  E.g. if site A's script begins a transaction on 
> A.localStorage, and calls into site B's script embedded in an iframe 
> which begins a transaction on B.localStorage, an exception 
> would be thrown.
> 
>   * transactions *could* be spread across script executions, alert() 
> dialogs, sync XHR, or anywhere else the current HTML5 spec 
> requires the 
> storage mutex be released.  Note that UAs wishing to forbid that 
> behavior could simply throw a TransactionFailed exception where the 
> storage mutex would have been released in the current spec.  Or this 
> could be made illegal by the spec.
> 
>   * it's not clear to me how to handle async XHRs and Worker messages 
> sent from within a failed transaction.  They could be specified to be 
> sent or not and either behavior implemented easily.  My gut tells me 
> that they *should* be sent regardless.
> 
> Feedback very much desired.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> Addendum: I think that a past argument against a 
> transactional approach 
> was that scripts can cause side effects during transactions 
> that can't 
> be (easily, performantly) rolled back.  This is true, and 
> troubling in 
> that it deviates from SQL semantics, but because this proposal is 
> designed for the first class of web apps I don't believe it's a 
> compelling argument.  Further, a script can only corrupt its 
> browsing-context-local state by mishandling failed 
> transactions.  Using 
> gmail as a convenient example, if a transaction failed but 
> gmail wasn't 
> prepared to handle the failure, that particular gmail instance would 
> just break.  No e-mails or contacts would be corrupted, and the user 
> could reload gmail and regain full functionality.  Servers should 
> already be prepared to deal with clients behaving unpredictably.
>

Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 02:29:36 UTC