[whatwg] Storage mutex

Mike Shaver mike.shaver at gmail.com
Fri Aug 28 00:05:53 PDT 2009

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow<jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> fetchStorageUpdates?
> fetch has the same problem.  If we want to keep the "StorageUpdates" suffix,
> I'd go with something like allowStorageUpdates.  But, no matter what, it
> just doesn't seem very clear that you're actively allowing another thread to
> use the storage mutex.
> What about yieldStorageMutex?  Yield is enough different from unlock that I
> don't think it'll leave developers looking for the lock function.  Yield
> fits pretty well since this is essentially cooperative multi-tasking.
>  StorageMutex is good because that's what its actually affecting.

processPendingStorageUpdates? processStorageUpdates?

FWIW I would expect getStorageUpdates to return some storage updates
to the caller, like a getter.  I would expect fetchStorageUpdates to
do the same thing, except maybe involving something over the network,
and I would be a little puzzled about why it wasn't just


More information about the whatwg mailing list