[whatwg] Application defined "locks"

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Darin Fisher <darin at chromium.org> wrote:

> What concerns me are the cases where synchronous events (e.g., resizing an
> iframe) can cause script to execute in another domain.  As spec'd, there is
> a potential dead lock with the storage mutex.  We must carefully unlock in
> situations like this.  However, such unlocking will appear quite mysterious
> to users, so much so that I question the value of the implicit storage
> mutex.
>

Right now I'm not sure how big a problem this actually is. The resize event
for a document in a frame can surely be dispatched asynchronously so no
unlocking is required. I would like to have a much better idea of how many
places absolutely must release the storage mutex before deciding that
approach is unworkable.

Rob
-- 
"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
53:5-6]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090910/311c1121/attachment-0002.htm>