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

> As a developer, I'd except r.active to be null if there's no worker to send events like fetch to.

Agreed, Chrome will first set r.active to null then dispatch the 'controllerchange' event. Note however (just in case it's not clear) that r.active can be an "activating" SW, which would not receive these events until activation succeeds.

There's weirdness about the naming 'controllerchange'. It's fired when your registration's .active changes, but that doesn't mean your .controller changed. Should it be renamed?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/659#issuecomment-87964757