/lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-March/018942.html
https://github.com/whatwg/whatwg.org · HTML · 83 lines · 63 code · 13 blank · 7 comment · 0 complexity · 4793b6f4a11fe7c4d22cd773c88e6624 MD5 · raw file
- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
- <HTML>
- <HEAD>
- <TITLE> [whatwg] localStorage + worker processes
- </TITLE>
- <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
- <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:whatwg%40lists.whatwg.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bwhatwg%5D%20localStorage%20%2B%20worker%20processes&In-Reply-To=%3C278fd46c0903221153n16e0077bsba34ab49c4a8b93c%40mail.gmail.com%3E">
- <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
- <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
- <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="018941.html">
- <LINK REL="Next" HREF="018943.html">
- </HEAD>
- <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
- <H1>[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes</H1>
- <!--htdig_noindex-->
- <B>Aaron Boodman</B>
- <A HREF="mailto:whatwg%40lists.whatwg.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bwhatwg%5D%20localStorage%20%2B%20worker%20processes&In-Reply-To=%3C278fd46c0903221153n16e0077bsba34ab49c4a8b93c%40mail.gmail.com%3E"
- TITLE="[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes">aa at google.com
- </A><BR>
- <I>Sun Mar 22 11:53:03 PDT 2009</I>
- <P><UL>
- <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="018941.html">[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes
- </A></li>
- <LI>Next message: <A HREF="018943.html">[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes
- </A></li>
- <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
- <a href="date.html#18942">[ date ]</a>
- <a href="thread.html#18942">[ thread ]</a>
- <a href="subject.html#18942">[ subject ]</a>
- <a href="author.html#18942">[ author ]</a>
- </LI>
- </UL>
- <HR>
- <!--/htdig_noindex-->
- <!--beginarticle-->
- <PRE>On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Drew Wilson <<A HREF="http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org">atwilson at google.com</A>> wrote:
- ><i> I've thought about this more, and I'm afraid that if you start making the
- </I>><i> API cumbersome (forcing only async access) then apps are just going to use
- </I>><i> document.cookies instead of localStorage. I'd hate to see us radically
- </I>><i> change the API to support the worker case - I'd rather get rid of
- </I>><i> localStorage support from workers, or else just enforce a max time that a
- </I>><i> worker can hold the lock.
- </I>
- I don't believe that. Adding one async callback is no inconvenience
- compared to the sad farce that is the document.cookie "API". Also,
- localstorage has many benefits including structured storage and not
- getting sent to the server in every request.
- - a
- </PRE>
- <!--endarticle-->
- <!--htdig_noindex-->
- <HR>
- <P><UL>
- <!--threads-->
- <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="018941.html">[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes
- </A></li>
- <LI>Next message: <A HREF="018943.html">[whatwg] localStorage + worker processes
- </A></li>
- <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
- <a href="date.html#18942">[ date ]</a>
- <a href="thread.html#18942">[ thread ]</a>
- <a href="subject.html#18942">[ subject ]</a>
- <a href="author.html#18942">[ author ]</a>
- </LI>
- </UL>
- <hr>
- <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org">More information about the whatwg
- mailing list</a><br>
- <!--/htdig_noindex-->
- </body></html>