W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [widgets] New Widget Update Types: Kill Switch and Patch

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:11:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4D5035CD.3070205@opera.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
CC: public-webapps WG <public-Webapps@w3.org>

On 2/7/11 4:43 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2011, at 14:22, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Scott Wilson
>> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> I really like the Kill Switch/EOL idea and having a "type"
>>> attribute to specify it, but I'm concerned that the Patch type
>>> could be a bit more problematic to get consistently implemented.
>> Understood. What concerns are you having or what interop issues do
>> you foresee?
> Principally the handling of the various update states, rollbacks
> after failing to apply patches, problems with
> multiple-version-spanning patch updates that kind of thing.
> Also when we unpack a widget and ready it, its no longer exactly the
> same as the input .wgt so we'd have to apply the patch against the
> originally imported package rather than the actual installed instance
> and then load it again or the patch won't take - so we may as well
> update the whole package anyway.

Both excellent issues.

> Its not a bad idea in principle, but potentially a lot of code to
> save a few kb of downloading.

I agree. For small widgets this is not an issue. It's for big widgets 
where it becomes a problem. It might be that the user agent could do 
negotiation (e.g., "I don't support patches and have plenty of 
bandwidth, just send me the whole thing").

Marcos Caceres
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 18:12:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:48 UTC