Re: [ServiceWorker] A worker that fails to activate should relinquish its controllees (#659)

> Technically, I don't think the service worker can be "recovered" once it reaches redundant state

By "recovered", I just meant a new registration/update attempt.

> I don't recall the details of the decision to make the worker that fails to activate still the active worker

I don't recall them either. It'd been spec'ed to make the worker redundant and set the active worker to null.

> Also, it seems right to fire "controllerchanged" in this case, no?

Agreed. I'll address this.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/659#issuecomment-85886355

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 07:06:01 UTC