[whatwg] Storage mutex and cookies can lead to browser deadlock
jorlow at chromium.org
Thu Sep 3 18:59:01 PDT 2009
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com>wrote:
> > 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.
For the record, all the developers I've talked to about the current state of
AppCache+storage+workers have been VERY disheartened. IE and Firefox have
no intentions of supporting WebDatabase any time soon. localStorage is not
available from workers. AppCache requires apps to be 100% client based (the
server needs to server static pages and the logic must be in JS) if you have
any personalization/authentication. Workers are only accessible via message
passing. Sure, we can imagine ways that nearly every application _can_ be
written in such environments, but in many cases these designs are quite
different from what web developers are used to.
I think there are good reasons for all the design decisions we're making,
but I'm worried we're not looking at the big picture enough.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg