Re: Geofencing API proposal

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 15 September 2014 17:20, Marijn Kruisselbrink <mek@google.com> wrote:
> > And as promised, here an update to my proposal.
>
>
> I think that we're almost talking about the same thing at this point.
> Most of the differences seem to come down largely to taste.
>
> On the events in the global scope, I see no reason why the SW can't
> install listeners on the set of GeofencingRegistration instances when
> it is activated/restored in much the same way that it installs a
> global listener.  That ensures that the events are the same in both
> contexts.  Though I note that you can't alter the set of fences from
> the SW in your proposal.  Is that intentional?
>
Assuming https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/421 gets
implemented, service workers can alter the set of fences, since they'll
have access to the exact same API via the ServiceWorkerRegistration object.

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 16:02:37 UTC