[whatwg] localStorage feedback

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Fri Oct 30 02:32:48 PDT 2009

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:

> I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one, but in general I'd
> say that making a race more subtle isn't usually much of a
> win.....especially when it comes to debugging it.

It's not just a matter of degree. If the UA follows the spec, authors can
(fairly easily) write code that's race free. Darin's proposing to make it so
they can't --- at least, not without external help like shared workers or
Web Storage, in which case I wonder why one would use LocalStorage at all.
(OK, I suppose one could rely on key/value atomicity and implement Lamport's
bakery algorithm on LocalStorage alone. I hope to never see that...)

>> Have you considered just not implementing LocalStorage? If it's so
>> difficult for authors to use correctly and to implement according to the
>> spec, this seems like the best path to me.
> We'd love to, but it's difficult given that most of the other vendors have
> already implemented it.  I also believe that Microsoft's browser exhibits
> the same races that Darin's talking about.  So I'm not really sure how you
> could suggest that us not implementing it is better than implementing the
> status quo.

That is a good point. You do have the option of doing better than IE, though

"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/20091030/14ffb286/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list