[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes

[Jonas Sicking]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at google.com> wrote:
> What is the need for localStorage access within workers?  Technically if
> someone really needed to access it, they could always have a function in the
> web page for accessing it and then use postMessage.  In other words, they
> could build their own ad-hoc async API pretty easily.  Another alternative
> is to just build an async API into the spec (and remove synchronous access
> to localStorage).
> Thoughts?

I do think it would be great if workers had access to some type of
structured storage. However I agree that the fact that both the main
thread and workers have synchronous access to the same storage is not
acceptable since that means that we're violating the
shared-nothing-message-passing design that makes workers not have to
deal with locks and other traditional multithread hazards.

/ Jonas