Re: [whatwg/fetch] Aborting a fetch: The Next Generation (#447)

@jakearchibald you mentioned the [f2f meeting](https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/447#issuecomment-291331433) coming up, and some possible discussion points.

Seems like it might also be an opportune time to discuss what Push might look like. Some pertinent links to help job memories- you Jake had [some early ideas late January](https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/447#issuecomment-275627127). @martinthomson provided some [clarification on how Push works](https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/447#issuecomment-282600942) at the end of another later thread on Push.

Is it worth trying to limit the problem to exclude ServiceWorkers in the beginning? The very minimal additions I'd see to [your idl](https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/447#issuecomment-281731850) would be just adding a `push` type to FetchObserver-

```
[Exposed=(Window,Worker)]
interface FetchObserver : EventTarget {
  // ...
  attribute EventHandler onpush;
};
```
The onpush listener needs to either get a [Response](https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#response-class) I'd imagine, or some new `PushResponse` that is structurally similar.

These two pieces could make a useful start for getting notices of any server pushed resources. I do think longer term it would be necessary & desireable to allow ServiceWorkers to also push additional resources in response to a request, but forgoing that and starting with the basics doesn't seem to me at this position like a danger, like it would be limiting to ServiceWorker's latter approach.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/447#issuecomment-294209153