Re: Move sync APIs out of "Worker" into "SyncWorker"

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Jake Archibald wrote:
>> >> New tabs using that ServiceWorker may be open or may open while
>> >> you're blocking. Baaaaad slowwww baaaad.
>> >
>> > I totally agree that it'd be bad to be slow (though honestly, a sync
>> > call to a local database isn't generally going to be slower than a
>> > network request, so it's not really "slow" by the standards relevant
>> > here).
>> While it's generally faster than the network request itself, it's much
>> slower than returning an *instruction* to make a network request, which
>> is what a service worker actually does.
> Well, it's what you hope authors will do. I'm sure plenty will be doing
> the fetches manually.

SW purposely doesn't make that easy, so I doubt they will.  It *does*
make it easy to resolve the request with a promise for a response,
which does what we want.


Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2014 21:48:21 UTC