Async LocalStorage (transactionless key-value API over IDB)

[nolanlawson]

This is a thing that webdevs perennially ask for, mostly because of ergonomics.

Would such an API also have any performance benefits due to the lack of transaction overhead? Is there overhead? Would this be a moot point because it would have to live alongside transaction-ful code anyway?

See also:

• https://discourse.wicg.io/t/asynclocalstorage/1554/9
• need AsyncLocalStorage (was #904) ServiceWorker#906
• localForage
• idb-keyval
• "just give us leveldb in the browser"

[inexorabletash]

See also: https://gist.github.com/inexorabletash/280016e79188b6a28247

[nolanlawson]

Hah yes, I totally forgot that you proposed this already. One step ahead of me. 😃

[domenic]

Hey, I've got a proposal for this that I think is pretty complete: https://domenic.github.io/async-local-storage/ . Many thanks to @inexorabletash for guiding me through various IDB intricacies.

This is specifically done as a layered API, since it does not need any features not already found in IDB, and so can take advantage of the infrastructure there.

Let me know what you think, and feel free to file issues on the tracker or chime in on existing discussions there!

[inexorabletash]

Also pinging @aliams on this topic.

[inexorabletash]

Closing out in favor of https://wicg.github.io/kv-storage/