W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2009

[whatwg] Persistent SharedWorkers

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:16:03 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0903210116y4fd1e1e9s7bc2ea2a199de4cc@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Drew,

I definitely think that a lot of what you are proposing here is very
interesting. And, as you mention, much of it needs user approval.

However, I don't think we can use UI as simple a what we use for
enabling popups. The reason is that it's something that is IMHO too
easy to social engineer and trick users into clicking. This is ok for
popups which don't really pose any security risk, but is IMHO not safe
enough for many other things. See for example the invalid-certificate
UI that firefox 3 uses. We have intentionally made it significantly
harder to accept a invalid certificate than accepting a popup since
the risk is higher.

So I think the UI part is a problem that we still need to figure out.
But it's something that I definitely think we should work on and try
to solve. What I have been thinking of a little is UI that allows
users to signal that a website can be installed as a application. Once
a site has received application status it would be allowed to do
things like what you propose, open popups, open chromeless windows,
replace context menus and more.

But at the same time it might be dangerous to make the UI the same as
when installing native applications, since we want people to realize
that native applications are more dangerous than these 'web
applications'.

But IANAUID (I am not a UI designed), so you probably shouldn't listen
to any of my ramblings in this area :)

/ Jonas

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote:
> My team at Google is experimenting with supporting persistent SharedWorkers
> (SharedWorkers whose lifetime is not linked to being entangled with an
> active browser window). I've reviewed some of the mailing list archives, so
> I'm aware of at least some of the past discussions on this topic - I wanted
> to give everyone a braindump of some of the ideas/issues we're kicking
> around and get some feedback from the community at large before going
> forward.
>
> - Motivation:
> There are a number of use cases where a web application would like to
> provide long-running services for the user that do not go away when the user
> closes his browser window. A canonical example of this is calendar
> notifications - a calendar application might like to have a persistent
> worker that monitors the user's calendar events, and displays notifications
> to the user when he has a meeting. Likewise, a user might want his mail
> application to display an unobtrusive notification when new mail arrives at
> the server. These are all use cases that native applications have supported
> for years, but which web-based applications currently have no way to
> achieve.
>
> - Persistent worker lifetime:
> A persistent worker would never be shutdown by the "closing orphan workers"
> mechanism, although it could still be killed by the User Agent (infinite
> loop protection, explicit user management, revocation of permissions) or by
> the worker explicitly invoking WorkerGlobalScope.close(). Once a persistent
> worker is created, it would be started up on every subsequent invocation of
> the user agent until it has been killed. The intent is that user agents that
> have registered persistent workers would launch on startup (i.e. launch when
> the user logs in to his OS account) to allow persistent workers to always
> run as long as the user is logged into the machine, although this is not
> required behavior.
> - Permissions:
> Installing a persistent worker is essentially giving a web application a
> near-permanent footprint on your PC - we need explicit permission from the
> user, and we need some mechanism in the user agent to revoke this
> permission. There are a number of examples of similar permission-granting
> user flows (ActiveX installation, plugin install, gears) which we could use
> as a model for our "grant/revoke permission" UI.
> The idea is that when an application instantiates a persistent worker for
> the first time, the user would be prompted to grant permission (the worker
> thread would not be started until the user granted permission) - in the case
> that the user does not grant permission, the parent page would have its
> worker.onerror() handler invoked. Revoking permission would happen on a
> per-domain basis and would kill all persistent workers for that domain via
> the existing kill worker mechanism described in the WebWorkers spec.
> We're not certain whether we need to expose APIs to allow a client to test
> whether permission has been granted or not (for example, a web application
> may want to interact with a persistent worker if it exists, but there isn't
> currently any way to tell if a worker exists or not without instantiating a
> worker, which might prompt the user for permissions). Gears had an explicit
> permissions variable applications could check, which seems valuable - do we
> do anything similar elsewhere in HTML5 that we could use as a model here?
>
> - Changes to worker APIs:
> The existing SharedWorker APIs should be sufficient for interacting with the
> worker - SharedWorkers can already precede/outlive individual browser window
> instances, so from the standpoint of a given Window they should operate
> similarly.
>
> An application can create a persistent worker via the PersistentWorker()
> constructor:
>
> ??? var worker = new PersistentWorker('worker.js', 'core');
>
> The namespace for PersistentWorkers are identical to those of SharedWorkers
> - for example, if you already have a PersistentWorker named 'core' under a
> domain and a window tries to create a SharedWorker named 'core', a security
> exception will be thrown, just as if a different URL had been specified for
> two identically-named SharedWorkers.
>
> From an entangled Window's standpoint, the persistent workers appear
> identical to SharedWorkers - they implement the SharedWorker interface and
> so expose identical APIs.
>
> - Worker UI:
> >From the worker standpoint, the main difference between a PersistentWorker
> and other types of workers is that the normal way of interacting with the
> user (via an open browser window) is not available, since there may be no
> windows open to the parent domain. We have yet to enumerate through all of
> the use cases, but our initial brainstorming came up with a few possible
> types of desired interactions:
> 1) Display an icon in the OS status bar. This would be an unobtrusive way
> for a given domain to display things like "you have new mail" or even errors
> like "unable to contact server". If supplied with an onclick handler, this
> could also be the footprint for further types of user interaction:
> 2) Open a browser window to a specific URL. I can imagine that popup
> blockers might block these windows except in response to a user action (like
> a click on the status bar icon).
> 3) Toast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_(computing)) - behavior is
> similar to the showNotification() API that was previously in HTML5.
> To enable these interactions, we'd add something like the following new APIs
> to the global scope for persistent workers:
>
> void open(url, optional?target, optional?feature, optional?replace) - opens
> a browser window, just like the window.open() API which is available from
> page context
> showNotification(url) - displays the HTML at the passed URL to the user via
> a toast popup. user agents may put restrictions on the size of the resulting
> window. The original HTML5 showNotification() API was much more limited (a
> few lines of unstyled text, an icon, and an onclick handler) - Dmitry Titov
> makes the case for full-HTML notifications
> here:?http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhg4xn62_28f8cwvzf8?- I have some
> concerns about phishing (since there's not necessarily any indication about
> the source of a given notification), so that may impact our implementation.
>
> void setStatus(imageUrl, optional statusText, optional?onClick) - sets the
> status bar icon for this worker (possibly limited to one-per-domain?) with
> the specified hover text, and a callback which will be invoked if the user
> clicks on the icon. Not all platforms have status bars (for example, some
> Linux window managers may not), so on those platforms this might not do
> anything. User Agents might also just have a single status bar icon for the
> browser, which when clicked on displays a window with the status/status text
> for all workers (rather than lots of separate icons).
>
> Anyhow, the ideas we have for UI/APIs are still pretty rough - we'll need to
> create some mocks and try them out to see what really works.
>
> - Inter-worker communication
> There isn't currently any way for workers (persistent or otherwise) to talk
> to one another without the intervention of a window, even when those workers
> exist under the same domain. Additionally, there's no good way for workers
> under different domains to talk to one another (a window can use the
> cross-domain messaging functionality to talk to other domains, but there's
> no analog for this for workers).
>
> This makes it hard for workers cooperatively running under different
> subdomains to share resources (authentication info, connections to the
> server, aggregated status messages, etc). We already have the idea of
> message events having an origin attribute which allows recipient windows to
> accept/ignore messages from other domains, but no way for workers to get
> ports connecting them to other workers, other than by having them delegated
> explicitly by windows. Have there been any past discussions about
> inter-worker communication?
>
> Internally we've discussed things like a cross-domain findWorker() API, or
> just a cross-domain postMessage() API, both of which would allow specifying
> a destination worker by domain + name, but these seem like flawed/cumbersome
> solutions.
>
> - Error Handling/Edge cases:
> There are a few places where we need to deal with errors (particularly
> network errors):
>
> 1) Persistent worker is launched by the user agent at startup, but we can't
> load the code (possibly due to a network error). There's no application to
> report the error to. In the case of network error, it seems like the user
> agent may want to retry (I can imagine that the browser might start up while
> the OS is still negotiating for a wireless IP during OS initialization).
>
> 2) Worker wants to display a status icon, but the network is down so the
> browser can't fetch the URL. One suggestion would be for workers to use data
> URIs for their status icons. Failing that, the user agent could display a
> generic icon. Similar issues exist for showNotification() as well, if we
> allow full HTML in notification popups.
>
> 3) Should persistent workers be locked into a single URL forever? Currently
> it's an error to try to create a shared worker with a different URL when
> there is already a SharedWorker running - this problem is compounded for
> persistent workers, because the workers essentially never exit so are stuck
> with using the same URL forever. Perhaps it makes sense to make
> WorkerGlobalScope.location writeable, to allow workers to control their own
> source?
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback on our approach - it seems like having
> persistent workers can enable some really cool application functionality
> that you can't really get any other way.
>
> -atw
>
>
Received on Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:16:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:47:49 GMT