W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [webworkers] SharedWorker and ApplicationCache

From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:47:55 -0800
Message-ID: <fa2eab050911071047p22df3354qcacd1aef7205490a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
I've been wondering if SharedWorkers should have a means of establishing an
appcache similar to how pages can via the <html manifest='x'> mechanism.

My mental model is that a shared worker is very much like a top-level page
with respect to appcaches, but that means for a shared worker to
express/establish its appcache is missing.

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com> wrote:

> You may have two separate pages running from different app caches (or
> version), each of which is trying to access the same shared worker, so we
> don't want to tie it explicitly to a specific parent's app cache/version.
> It does seem a bit wonky, though - if you have one parent who has an app
> cache that has two resources in it (a.js and b.js) and another parent who
> has an app cache that has a different two resources in it (a.js and c.js),
> it's non-deterministic which app cache the shared worker would be associated
> with, and this could break apps.
> I'm not sure that there's a good solution for this, given that manifests
> can only be associated with an HTML resource.
> -atw
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>wrote:
>> We were wondering why there is a quite complicated resolution algorithm to
>> determine the ApplicationCache that belongs to the SharedWorker rather than
>> just passing the ApplicationCache to the SharedWorker at creation time (i.e.
>> as constructor argument). Is there anything that is gained by the current
>> model?
>> --
>> Anne van Kesteren
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 18:48:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:20 UTC