- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:19 +0200
- To: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
- CC: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, "public-fixing-appcache@w3.org" <public-fixing-appcache@w3.org>
On 11/09/2012 17:19 , Jake Archibald wrote: > If we went for the worker-proxy solution, this could be one of the > many ways devs handle updates & they could pick the one best suited to > their situation. You're right, the zip thing would probably work well > for games devs. Do we need a higher level solution that doesn't > involve so much manual cache management? Or has the current spec shown > that it's not possible without creating something more confusing that > doing it manually? The more I think about this and read the (justified) use cases, the more I tend to be convinced that it would be best to start with the simplest, smallest low-level approach that makes it possible to implement richer behaviour on top of. It's not a terribly original thought, but I would rather leave the intricacies involved in the sort of dependency resolution you describe to library code. If common patterns emerge from that, we can then standardise those. One thing I've been wondering about is how much (if anything) can be salvaged from http://www.w3.org/TR/DataCache/. It was dropped because no one was interested back then, but then again when Nikunj came up with IndexedDB at first very few liked it either. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 10:25:26 UTC