On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Adam Barth <w...@adambarth.com> wrote: > I haven't been following the localStorage mutex discussion in detail, > but have we already rejected the idea of having content specifically > ask for the mutex via a transaction callback, similar to how web > databases work? > > localStorgage.atomicTransaction(function() { > localStorage["counter"]++; > });
Yes, the idea was rejected because if it is required then it is a breaking change to local storage, and if it isn't required, then authors won't use it because they'll be lazy. - a