[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes

Michael Nordman michaeln at google.com
Sun Mar 22 12:07:22 PDT 2009

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote:
> > I've thought about this more, and I'm afraid that if you start making the
> > API cumbersome (forcing only async access) then apps are just going to
> use
> > document.cookies instead of localStorage. I'd hate to see us radically
> > change the API to support the worker case - I'd rather get rid of
> > localStorage support from workers, or else just enforce a max time that a
> > worker can hold the lock.
> I don't believe that. Adding one async callback is no inconvenience
> compared to the sad farce that is the document.cookie "API". Also,
> localstorage has many benefits including structured storage and not
> getting sent to the server in every request.

I don't see how denying workers solves the problem. In a multi-threaded
browser, this has to be resolved reasonably even in the absence of workers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090322/641126c0/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list