- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:44:08 +0900
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:02:45 +0200, Chris Jones <cjones at mozilla.com> > wrote: > >> Feedback very much desired. >> > > I'm not really sure what to say other than that I'm not at all a fan of a > change that breaks existing deployments. I thought that was a pretty clear > outcome from last time we went about this. I also thought it was pretty > clear we wanted the burden to be on user agents. (I also recall, but am not > a 100% sure, that developers from Mozilla agreed to this, even though it > would be hard to make it all work in Gecko.) > I believe this opinion was expressed by people who hadn't yet tried to do it in a web browser with multiple event loops. :-) A bunch of us working on Chromium have spent a lot of time thinking about this and I don't think it's just a matter of burdening user agents. I think it's pretty clear that the spec, as is, is not possible to implement without making it trivial for a single website to lock up all of your event loops....which is a major step back in terms of browser performance...especially in this multi-core world we now live in. :-) This is especially true if the storage mutex extends to cookies since one tab running a poorly written site can lock everything up. And it sounds like, because of that, no one is going to implement the storage mutex for cookies per the spec. I really do think it's time to discuss alternatives. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090904/724106c4/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 02:44:08 UTC