[whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 71, Issue 72
david at davidflanagan.com
Wed Feb 24 10:04:12 PST 2010
Adam Barth wrote:
We don't want
> to use the array syntax because we want the API to be asynchronous.
If I've been following the thread correctly, the justification for an
asynchronous API was that localStorage is a mess, or something like
that. I'm not aware of what the issues are with localStorage: could you
justify an asynchronous cookie API more explicitly? This isn't a
blocking I/O issue, is it? Surely browsers will have the relevant
cookies already cached in memory, won't they?
In simple use cases, a developer just wants the cookie value, and having
to break an algorithm up into two functions because of an asynchronous
API is a burden. There are lots of ways to wrap easy-to-use synchronous
APIs around document.cookie. Do you think that developers will really
transition to a slightly inconvenient async API when they could grab an
off-the-shelf cookie library with an easier to use synchronous API?
I guess I'm asking whether there is some fundamental reason why
developers should be encouraged to abandon synchronous cookies. And if
not, can we provide a nice synchronous API at the same time as a nice
async API? How about getCookies() is synchronous when called with no
arguments, but is async when passed a callback?
More information about the whatwg