- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 09:39:32 +1200
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote: > 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.... > I don't think that's clear at all, yet. It's clearly *hard* to implement, and Chris' proposal for transactional localStorage is a lot easier to implement, so if we can get away with the compatibility break, we should. This is especially true if the storage mutex extends to cookies since one > tab running a poorly written site can lock everything up. > Only if you actually implement the semantics using a single global lock. I think we could do better. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090905/43d5e197/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 14:39:32 UTC