Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] consider allowing multiple worker thread instances for a single registration (#756)

@wanderview amazing data, thank you!

We should add `skipWaiting` to SW instances, eg `reg.waiting.skipWaiting()`. We agreed on this at a F2F earlier this year, but I can't find an issue for it (going to search some more for it, because I'm sure we had one).

I still think `.postMessage` is valuable. If we didn't have it people would just abuse fetch for it and have the same problems.

I'm happy to open the spec up to allow multiple worker instances, and UAs deal with the compatibility issues. We could issue a console warning on writing to the global after initial execution, but I don't know how effective that will be. Apple is probably in the best situation here, as I imagine devs will fix their stuff to get it working on iPhones. If multi-instance fails to show actual benefits in practice, we can remove it from the spec. @slightlyoff what do you think?

Devs I've spoken to since [my post](https://jakearchibald.com/2016/service-worker-meeting-notes/) have mostly said "We shouldn't rely on the global, so this change is fine", but I don't doubt that reality is less clear cut.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/756#issuecomment-242794500