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

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Tue Sep 8 01:52:14 PDT 2009

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:

> You'd have to implement it via a mutex.  An optimized implementation could
> wait until the first operation that can't be un-done before acquiring it,
> and do everything optimistically until then.  This is the same situation as
> WebDatabase if I understand it correctly.

AFAIK WebDatabase transactions can't have side effects outside the database,
so they can be implemented optimistically with automatic retries so aborts
aren't exposed to the developer.

If localStorage transactions are made to be just syntax around a mutex then
I'm not sure we've gained much for the compatibility break.

"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/20090908/0edac10b/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list