Re: [slightlyoff/ServiceWorker] Why does CacheStorage have [SecureContext] but not Cache? (#941)

> I can see wanting [SecureContext] on the interface if there's a constructor and therefore we should be consistent for types without constructors.

The reason was exactly that. I.e., the `Cache`, `ServiceWorker` and `ServiceWorkerRegistration` don't have a constructor and can be gotten only from the methods exposed with `[SecureContext]`.

> We don't really have rigid rules yet; we'll have to learn together what makes sense.

Are there any other such cases yet? I can do either way but would like to have some good rationale.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/941#issuecomment-237788351