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" <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
