[whatwg] Storage mutex and cookies can lead to browser deadlock

Michael Nordman michaeln at google.com
Thu Sep 3 18:48:16 PDT 2009

> Shared worker access would be a plus.
Indeed. The lack of access to LocalStorage in 'workers' forces developers to
use the more difficult database api for all storage needs, and to roll their
own change event mechanisms (based on postMessage). Thats a bunch of busy
work if a name/value pair schema is all your app really needs.

How hard can it be to find a way to allow LocalStorage access to workers :)

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote:
>> To be clear, I'm not trying to reopen the topic of giving cookie access to
>> workers - I'm happy to restrict cookie access to document context (I
>> probably shouldn't have brought it up again).
> And to be clear: I don't have strong opinions about cookies
> being accessible in Workers, but I do think localStorage needs to
> be accessible.  That said, my primary goal here is to make the storage mutex
> more reasonable (i.e. something vendors will actually implement).  Shared
> worker access would be a plus, though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090903/d8d0d11a/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list