[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       whatwg
Subject:    Re: [whatwg] Storage mutex feedback
From:       "Mike Wilson" <mikewse () hotmail ! com>
Date:       2009-08-31 15:54:08
Message-ID: 012b01ca2a53$47324750$0a01a8c0 () mikedeskxp
[Download RAW message or body]

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > Upon further consideration I've renamed getStorageUpdates() to
> > yieldForStorageUpdates().
> 
> I really liked Darin's (?) suggestion of allowStorageUpdates as that
> seems to exactly describe the intended use of the function. We no
> longer prevent other page from updating the storage.

Quite nice. One little nit is that it could be
interpreted as allowing oneself's updates, while
it is really about allowing other's updates.
allowOtherStorageUpdates? (not so nice, but... ;-)

Is there a preference for having the name indicate
that "we" are finishing our own transaction, ie
  myStorageUpdatesAreNowComplete
  endStorageUpdates
  finishStorageUpdates
  commitStorageUpdates
  flushStorageUpdates
  saveStorageUpdates
or should it indicate that "others" are now welcome
to do their stuff, such as in:
  otherPagesStorageUpdatesAreNowWelcome
  allow(Other)StorageUpdates
  enable(Other)StorageUpdates
?

Best regards
Mike

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]