[whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies and localStorage

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Fri Sep 4 14:39:32 PDT 2009

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:

> I think it's pretty clear that the spec, as is, is not possible to
> implement without making it trivial for a single website to lock up all of
> your event loops....

I don't think that's clear at all, yet.

It's clearly *hard* to implement, and Chris' proposal for transactional
localStorage is a lot easier to implement, so if we can get away with the
compatibility break, we should.

This is especially true if the storage mutex extends to cookies since one
> tab running a poorly written site can lock everything up.

Only if you actually implement the semantics using a single global lock. I
think we could do better.

"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/20090905/43d5e197/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list