[whatwg] Storage mutex
darin at google.com
Wed Aug 26 13:13:20 PDT 2009
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Darin Fisher <darin at google.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org>wrote:
>>> 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?
>> I thought that's what getStorageUpdates implied :-).
> The getStorageUpdates name seems pretty decent to me when considering it
> from the perspective of the caller. The caller is saying that they are OK
> with being able to see changes made to the localStorage by "other threads."
> This cleverly avoids the need to talk about locks, which seems like a good
> thing. It is okay for there to be no updates to storage.
What about allowStorageUpdates?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg