[whatwg] localStorage mutex - a solution?

Mike Shaver mike.shaver at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 14:56:24 PST 2009

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Rob Ennals <rob.ennals at gmail.com> wrote:
> Or to put it another way: if the thread can't call an API then it can't
> block waiting for another storage mutex, thus deadlock can't occur, thus we
> don't need to release the storage mutex.

Right, but the spec text there doesn't prevent the UA from releasing
more than in that scenario, which seems like it's not an improvement
over where we are right now: unpredictable consistency.  Existing racy
implementations like in IE would be conformant, so developers can't
count on the script-sequenced-storage-ops pattern providing

More likely, though, _I_'m missing something...


More information about the whatwg mailing list