[whatwg] Storage mutex

Darin Fisher 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.
> -Darin

What about allowStorageUpdates?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090826/f91a4f73/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list