<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Drew Wilson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atwilson@google.com">atwilson@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Robert O'Callahan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robert@ocallahan.org" target="_blank">robert@ocallahan.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote">
</div></blockquote></div><div>We don't know how much (if any) performance must be sacrificed, because no-one's tried to implement parallel cookie access with serializability guarantees. So I don't think we can say what the correct tradeoff is.</div>
</div></blockquote></div><div class="im"><div><br></div></div><div>The spec as proposed states that script that accesses cookies cannot operate in parallel with network access on those same domains. The performance impact of something like this is pretty clear, IMO - we don't need to implement it and measure it to know it exists and in some situations could be significant.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with everything Drew said, but I think think this one point really needs to be singled out. Cookies go across the wire. Serializable semantics are not possible in todays (latent) world. Period.</div>
</div>