<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robert@ocallahan.org">robert@ocallahan.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jorlow@chromium.org" target="_blank">jorlow@chromium.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Robert O'Callahan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robert@ocallahan.org" target="_blank">robert@ocallahan.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Jeremy Orlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jorlow@chromium.org" target="_blank">jorlow@chromium.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
First of all, I was wondering why all user prompts are specified as "must release the storage mutex" (<a href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#user-prompts" target="_blank">http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#user-prompts</a>). Should this really say "must" instead of "may"? IIRC (I couldn't find the original thread, unfortunately) this was added because of deadlock concerns. It seems like there might be some UA implementation specific ways this could deadlock and there is the question of whether we'd want an alert() while holding the lock to block other execution requiring the lock, but I don't see why the language should be "must". For Chromium, I don't think we'll need to release the lock for any of these, unless there's some deadlock scenario I'm missing here.</blockquote>
</div><div><br>So if one page grabs the lock and then does an alert(), and another page in the same domain tries to get the lock, you're going to let the latter page hang until the user dismisses the alert in the first page?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes. And I agree this is sub-optimal, but shouldn't it be left up to the UAs what to do? I feel like this is somewhat of an odd case to begin with since alerts lock up most (all?) browsers to a varying degrees even without using localStorage.</div>
</div></blockquote></div><div><br>That behaviour sounds worse than what Firefox currently does, where an alert disables input to all tabs in the window (which is already pretty bad), because it willl make applications in visually unrelated tabs and windows hang.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK...I guess it makes sense to leave this as is.</div><div><br></div><div>One thing I just realized that kind of sucks though: This makes alert based debugging much more difficult. I guess that's acceptable, though.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>Given that different UAs are probably going to have other scenarios where they have to drop the lock (some of them may even be purely implementational issues), should we add some way for us to notify scripts the lock was dropped? A normal event isn't going to be of much use, since it'll fire after the scripts execution ends (so the lock would have been dropped by then anyway). A boolean doesn't seem super useful, but it's better than nothing and could help debugging. Maybe fire an exception? Are there other options?</div>
</blockquote></div><div><br>A generation counter might be useful.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Ooo, I like that idea. When would the counter increment? It'd be nice if it didn't increment if the page did something synchronous but no one else took the lock in the mean time.</div>
</div></blockquote></div><div><br>Defining "no-one else" may be difficult. I haven't thought this through, to be honest, but I think you could update the counter every time the storage mutex is released and the shared state was modified since the storage mutex was acquired. Reading the counter would acquire the storage mutex. You'd basically write<br>
<br>var counter = window.storageMutexGenerationCounter;<br>... do lots of stuff ...<br>if (window.storageMutexGenerationCounter != counter) {<br> // abort, or refresh local state, or something<br>}<br><br>I'm not sure what you'd do if you discovered an undesired lock-drop, though. If you can't write something sensible instead of "abort, or something", it's not worth doing.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess it would depend on the use. Let's say a library/framework dependeds on the lock being held but does a callback (that might do something that causes the lock to be dropped). It could check the counter and raise an exception. It could also re-start "processing" if that were an acceptable answer (but by having the counter, it would only do so when necessary). I think it'll be very application specific _what_ you do when you catch such an error, but I do think it'll be valuable to developers.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote"><div>But getStorageUpdates is still not the right name for it. The only way that there'd be any updates to get is if, when you call the function, someone else takes the lock and makes some updates. Maybe it should be yieldStorage (or yieldStorageMutex)? In other words, maybe the name should imply that you're allowing concurrent updates to happen?</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote">
</div>
</div></div><br>I thought that's what getStorageUpdates implied :-).</blockquote><div><br></div><div>To me, getStorageUpdates seems to imply that updates have already happened and we're working with an old version of the data. I think many developers will be quite shocked that getStorageUpdates _enables_ others to update storage. In other words, 'get' seems to imply that you're consuming state that's happening anyway, not affecting behavior.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For what it's worth, I sanity checked my point with a web developer here at Google working with LocalStorage and he too thought the name was misleading/not clear. Are we the only ones??</div></div>