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

Re: [webworkers] SharedWorker and ApplicationCache

From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:00:16 -0800
Message-ID: <f965ae410911071200x3e98f511ya097a38f55966666@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Yeah, I thought about this some back when I was trying to piece together a
proposal for persistent workers. I suppose you could pass an optional
manifest URL to the SharedWorker constructor, with appropriate restrictions
on different pages creating the same SharedWorker but with different
manifest URLs. Since there's already an optional name parameter, you could
always require the name to be specified if you are specifying an app cache
URL (so the third argument to the constructor would always be the manifest


On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>wrote:

> 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 22:48:46 UTC

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