<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert O'Callahan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robert@ocallahan.org">robert@ocallahan.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Orlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jorlow@chromium.org" target="_blank">jorlow@chromium.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<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">Is there any data (or any way to collect the data) on how much of the web IE and Chrome's current behavior has broken? Given that there hasn't been panic in the streets, I'm assuming approximately 0%?</div>
</blockquote></div><div><br>We previously had a lengthy discussion about this.<br><br>If a site has a cookie race that causes a problem in IE/Chrome one in every 10,000 page loads, are you comfortable with that?</div></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm much more comfortable with that than the cost of a global mutex that all cookies and LocalStorage share. There are other ways to come about this problem (like developer tools).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm pretty sure Chromium has no intention of implementing a global storage mutex and putting all cookie access under it. Has anyone heard anything (either way) from Microsoft? Are there any browsers moving to a multi-event-loop (be it multi-threaded or multi-process) based model that intend to implement this? If not, then it would seem like the spec is not grounded in reality.</div>
</div>