[whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies and localStorage
robert at ocallahan.org
Sat Sep 5 03:49:06 PDT 2009
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Chris Jones <cjones at mozilla.com> wrote:
> And if the intention is to make scripts appear to run atomically, then I
> think there are better ways to specify that than storage mutex.
That sounds good, how?
My problem with storage mutex boils down to the fact that by the letter of
> the spec, a script can lock out the UA indefinitely by just reading a
What do you mean "lock out the UA"?
> Transactional semantics seems to be a better abstraction, and an ancillary
> benefit is that it's much easier to implement to boot. Though even if it
> were harder to implement, I would still argue for it.
I agree with you. However, there is still the compatibility issue. (Some
people may also argue that what we currently have is simpler for authors
than any explicit transactional API --- personally I'm unsure if that
"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...
More information about the whatwg