I think the idea is that JavaScript should not do unexpected things. The
suggestion to only make local storage accessible from inside callbacks seems
the best suggestion so far.
Cheers,
Keean.
On 11 January 2011 06:20, Felix Halim felix.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:02 PM,
I think I already came to the same conclusion... JavaScript has no control
over effects, which devalues STM. In the absence of effect control, apparent
serialisation (of transactions) is the best you can do.
What we need is a purely functional JavaScript, it makes threading so much
easier ;-)
Comments inline:
On 11 January 2011 07:11, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Coming back to the initial message in this thread (at the very bottom):
= General rule of thumb: clearly separate input data and output data.
Using JavaScript dynamic nature, things could look as follows:
Looks great, I just tried to stay as close to the current API as possible.
A single handler should definitely be enough. Can, say, a cursor be read
multiple times (if there are several success handlers)? Doesn’t that make
things more complicated?
On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:22 , Keean Schupke
If one handler changes the state who knows what will happen. I guess the
order in which handers are called is significant. That's one advantage to
using a function like all to compose callbacks - its very clear what order
they get called in. You could call it 'sequence' to make it even clearer
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11730
Art Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
So what's the plan for localStorage in workers?
J
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
I think I already came to the same conclusion... JavaScript has no control
over effects, which devalues STM. In the absence of effect control, apparent
serialisation (of
This is a Last Call transition announcement for Navigation Timing:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-navigation-timing-20110111/
Please send comments to public-web-p...@w3.org with [NavigationTiming]
at the start of the subject line by 8 February 2011.
Note: Feedback would be especially
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11581
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11589
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11606
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
With localStorage being the way it is, I personally don't think we can
ever allow localStorage access in workers.
However I do think we can and should provide access to a separate
storage area (or several named storage areas) which can only be
accessed from callbacks. On the main thread those
Would each 'name' storage have its own thread to improve parallelism?
would:
withNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...});
make more sense from a naming point of view?
Cheers,
Keean.
On 11 January 2011 20:58, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
With localStorage being the way it is, I
Glenn:
Sorry about the slow response; I was on vacation, and am only now catching up.
We've discussed these issues before, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jan/0229.html
for much of the initial discussion. However, you've brought up a new
point that I think is
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
Would each 'name' storage have its own thread to improve parallelism?
Your vocabulary is a bit off since from an API point of view, storage
areas don't have threads, the execution environments in workers and
windows do.
But
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
would:
withNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...});
make more sense from a naming point of view?
I have a different association for 'with',
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Python has its with keyword, used like with file = open('foo'):
doStuffToTheFile(file), which similarly creates a named resource and
(with open('foo') as file:)
takes a chunk of code within which the resource is
18 matches
Mail list logo
