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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT