On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Michael Nordman <micha...@google.com>wrote:
> > Shared worker access would be a plus. > Indeed. The lack of access to LocalStorage in 'workers' forces developers > to use the more difficult database api for all storage needs, and to roll > their own change event mechanisms (based on postMessage). Thats a bunch of > busy work if a name/value pair schema is all your app really needs. > For the record, all the developers I've talked to about the current state of AppCache+storage+workers have been VERY disheartened. IE and Firefox have no intentions of supporting WebDatabase any time soon. localStorage is not available from workers. AppCache requires apps to be 100% client based (the server needs to server static pages and the logic must be in JS) if you have any personalization/authentication. Workers are only accessible via message passing. Sure, we can imagine ways that nearly every application _can_ be written in such environments, but in many cases these designs are quite different from what web developers are used to. I think there are good reasons for all the design decisions we're making, but I'm worried we're not looking at the big picture enough.