We discussed this in more detail here:<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg13799.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg13799.html</a></div><div><br></div>
<div>At the time, I suggested not protecting cookies with a mutex (allow asynchronous access - the current behavior on IE and Chrome), which made the monocles pop out of everyone's eyes :)</div><div><br></div><div>-atw<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Jens Alfke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:snej@google.com">snej@google.com</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"><br>
On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
My recollection is that we prohibit worker access to cookies for exactly this reason (WorkerGlobalScope does not expose a "cookies" attribute).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Looks like you're right; section 5 of the Web Workers spec says:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The DOM APIs (Node objects, Document objects, etc) are not available to workers in this version of this specification.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
and there's no defined way to access cookies except through Document. Crisis averted.<br>
<br>
(If the spec does get modified to allow local-storage access from worker threads, though, this same problem will arise, since they use the same lock.)<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
—Jens</font></blockquote></div><br></div>