Re: [ServiceWorker] Allowing multiple scopes (& should scopes be primary key?) (#566)

Meeting summary:

* The backwards compatible bits of proposal 3 feels fine
* Disagreement over `null` scopes, it's something we can add later if we see people using scopes of `/this/path/totally/doesnt/exist`
* Allowing pages to change scope is a bit dangerous, as you end up with likely-cached content doing the work, meaning you end up with a two-step update. Decided: only let a ServiceWorker change scope during the activate event
* Add `.setScope()` to the `ActivateEvent` object to accomplish this (still needs to be async as it rejects if another registration uses this scope)
* This model lets us keep `reg.scope` as a sync getter, it's no worse than `reg.installing` etc
* To decide: If a registration changes to have multiple scopes `['/a/', '/b/']`, and a page calls `.register(scriptURL, {scope: '/a/'})` does it reject or resolve with the registration with scope `['/a/', '/b/']`?
* `//docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/docid` and `//docs.google.com/a/mozilla.com/spreadsheets/d/docid` are actually seperate apps with seperate binaries etc, as is Google's settings page, so we're still lacking in examples of one app with disjointed paths
* `//github.com/settings/` & `//github.com/watching/` may be an example, as may Evernote - @sicking can you look into Evernote?


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/566#issuecomment-64688956