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

[whatwg] Fwd: AppCache and SharedWorkers?

From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:27:58 -0700
Message-ID: <fa2eab050903251127n58e4e92dp6b14e65151e01533@mail.gmail.com>
There hasn't been much discussion of this yet... a few comments on the list
between august and november of 2008...
> > > [michaeln] How do workers and appCaches interact?
> >
> > [ian] workers are associated with browsing contexts, so they go through
the
> > normal app cache networking changes. This probably interacts badly
> > with shared workers used from different app caches. We should probably
> > study this more.
> >
> > Aaron, Maciej, others, do you have opinions on how these should
> > interact?
>
> [michaeln] Seems reasonable to spec that dedicated workers are very
related to
> their owner, execute in a child browsing context, and consequently
> inherit the same appCache.
>
> Seems reasonable to spec that shared workers are associated with a
> browsing context that is very distinct from their clients. Akin to an
> "auxiliary top-level browsing context".

[ian] The above seems reasonable...


> Beyond that it gets less clear.
>
> Do sharedWorker.js documents need a <html manifest='url'> equivalent?

They don't have one today. I don't really want to add one...


> Should a shraredWorker loaded from appCacheA be distinct from a named
> shared worker loaded from appCacheB or from the network?

That seems like a reasonable possibility too...


I haven't fixed this yet.



On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to understand the ApplicationCache spec as it applies to
> workers, but I didn't find anything promising when I searched the archives.
> Is ApplicationCache intended to apply to workers? The application cache API
> isn't available to workers, but I'm guessing the intent is that if an
> application creates a dedicated worker then worker requests (like
> importScripts()) would come out of the cache inherited from the parent
> document. If not, then it seems impossible to support running workers when
> in offline mode.
>
> Since SharedWorkers are shared by multiple windows, there's some ambiguity
> about which app cache it should use (perhaps always the one from the creator
> window?) - it seems like an app might get different SharedWorkers() loading
> from different app caches depending on the order in which different windows
> create them, which seems like a dubious outcome. Has this been discussed
> previously?
>
> -atw
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090325/cef95c24/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 11:27:58 GMT

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