[webkit-dev] LocalStorage spec and structured cloning

[Maciej Stachowiak]

I'd advise commenting right in the w3c bugzilla, but if you don't feel like making an extra account I can copy in the below remarks for you.

 - Maciej

On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:

> I'm concerned that implementing this will only encourage more use of localStorage.  The API is very poor because it requires synchronous IO and synchronization between browser contexts, which may live on different threads.  (Note: Chrome does not implement the required synchronization.)
> 
> If we could fix localStorage to be asynchronous and transactional :-) then it'd be cool.  Of course, one answer is that people should just use IndexedDB.
> 
> FWIW, Jorlow (when he was still working on chrome) expressed similar sentiments.
> 
> On Jun 2, 2011 4:13 PM, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Does anyone have an opinion on this Web Storage spec bug? The input of the WebKit community is desired. And probably Safari and Chrome folks in particular, if opinions differ.
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111
> > 
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#dom-storage-getitem says that "The
> > getItem(key) method must return a structured clone of the current value
> > associated with the given key." but all browsers I've tested return a string
> > representation of the value instead."
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Maciej
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > webkit-dev mailing list
> > webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20110602/ae98a3f3/attachment-0001.html>