Remove the storage mutex #342
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we keep this section and point out that there can be racing now that the protection against that is gone? (If we end up specifying something later this can be amended, but it seems good to articulate somewhere the guarantees the specification text offers.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added a stern warning for the racy document.cookies API, and thought I would do something similar for localStorage once I figure out how to express the "sync at event loop" thing. Do you think we also need to keep this section, or the "Serialisability of script execution" section?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either is probably fine. I suspect that long term we should rewrite the storage APIs on top of some primitives that define the synchronization.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that adding a stern warning + example similar to the coookies one (or maybe just a reference to the cookies example) would be good.
e3e0003 to
d483538
Compare
source
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this section is still valuable. You can just remove the note. Right?
6c901e5 to
bb89fa1
Compare
|
This LGTM after a rebase. |
bb89fa1 to
1b918cf
Compare
|
Rebased to resolve conflicts with eec9646 (the removed algorithm released the storage mutex) |
No description provided.