On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Aaron Boodman <a...@google.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com> wrote: > > I've thought about this more, and I'm afraid that if you start making the > > API cumbersome (forcing only async access) then apps are just going to > use > > document.cookies instead of localStorage. I'd hate to see us radically > > change the API to support the worker case - I'd rather get rid of > > localStorage support from workers, or else just enforce a max time that a > > worker can hold the lock. > > 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. I don't see how denying workers solves the problem. In a multi-threaded browser, this has to be resolved reasonably even in the absence of workers.