[whatwg] LocalStorage in workers

[Aaron Boodman]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:

> Code wise, what Robert suggested is MUCH simpler.  Almost for free in
> WebKit.  Creating an asynchronous access method and exposing this in the
> page is much more complex.  It also defeats the main purpose of LocalStorage
> (which is to be a simple, light weight way to store data).
>

I do not buy that "creating an asynchronous access method and exposing this
in the page" ... "defeats the main purpose of LocalStorage (which is to be a
simple, light weight way to store data)"

Having one async callback doesn't make the API hard to use. Callbacks are
easy to work with in JS. Adding one is not the end of the world by a long
shot.

That said, I suppose it is probably wise to chase down option 3), if people
are motivated, so that we don't end up with *three* name/value storage APIs.

- a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090916/2dc42895/attachment-0002.htm>