[whatwg] Storage mutex

Kevin Benson kevin.m.benson at gmail.com
Fri Aug 28 04:05:43 PDT 2009

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Jeremy Orlow<jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:
>>> Lastly, is navigator.getStorageUpdates() the right name for the function
>>> that drops the lock?  Why was it changed from navigator.releaseLock()?  I
>>> assume we're trying to avoid the word "lock", but the reason why you'd need
>>> to call a function to get updates is not clear without understanding the
>>> concept of a lock...so what's the point of making this so cryptic?
>> Authors would be confused that there's no aquireLock() API.
> Good point.
> 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?

How about:


... since a new transactor cannot write to storage until a commit
point is reached by the current transactor finishing up and releasing
the lock.

    K e V i N

More information about the whatwg mailing list