[whatwg] localStorage feedback

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Tue Nov 3 11:52:46 PST 2009

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Darin Fisher <darin at chromium.org> wrote:

> That's correct.  My point is simple:  Here is another case where nesting
> can happen that hadn't been foreseen.  Trying to foresee all such issues is
> difficult.


Will we just keep amending the spec each time we find such a possible case?

I would.

> OK, but my point is that the spec should afford implementors with the
> ability to unlock the storage mutex at other times for reasons not mentioned
> in the spec.

I disagree, because this gives implementors freedom to drop the mutex in
situations that might really just be fixable implementation bugs. I think
our positions are clear now so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

>> I'm not convinced.  Look at Google Maps and street view.  Gmail uses more
>>> Flash now than it used to.
>> For new features, sure. But are they reimplementing existing browser-based
>> functionality to use plugins instead?
> I think it is sufficient to just talk in the context of new features.  A JS
> library or component grows a new feature that suddenly starts using a
> plugin.  Now, API calls that were not supposed to touch plugins start
> touching plugins, and the storage mutex gets dropped.

That only matters if they start using the new feature in the middle of a
localStorage "transaction". That seems possible, but unlikely, to me.

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091104/e995dd2a/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list