Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] Video call (#1173)

**Ali:** In Edge, the "push" event goes to "background" active service worker outside of the Edge process. "notificationclick" goes to foreground in-Edge active service worker.

**Nate:** This works fine for Facebook (https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/756#issuecomment-317019660).

**Ali:** "background" SW will will never see clients. But that's implementation detail. We're looking at fixing that.

**Alex:** Why not use in-Edge SW when browser is open?

**Ali:** Problem is if Edge closes while handling push event, that would terminate the in-Edge service worker.

**Jatinder:** Why would you use push if a user was already on the site? Don't you have to show a notification when you receive a push?

**Nate:** You don't if there's a window to the site open.

**Jake:** That's in the spec. Also, getting all messages through push is good for consistency, even if page is open.

**Ali & Jatinder:** FB case is compelling.

**Ben:** When you postmessage to an active worker, where does it go?

**Ali:** Foreground worker.

**Nate:** When posting to `navigation.serviceWorker.controller`, it makes sense to go to in-Edge SW.

**Jatinder:** Would you ever message the installing worker?

**Nate:** We only message active right now. We have use cases for messaging others. Might experiment this week with that: installing worker messaging pages.

**Jake:** Would you support postmessage to the background active SW?

**Ali:** We'd support postmessaging channels.

**Jake:** Can we just see what breaks?

**Edge:** Ok with that.

**Alex:** With Chrome how does this related with servisification

**Matt:** Shouldn't affect us. We'll still have one instance.

**Kinuko:** Agreed. All assumptions are sw is central.

**Edge:** We only have one instance of the bg worker. Not one per push message.

**Andrew:** What about bg sync

**Edge:** We haven't thought that one through. Probably same as push – same "what if Edge closes" case as "push".

**Alex:** SW can just close anyway.

**Edge:** Better if it doesn't have to.

**Jake:** What happens if bg active worker postmessages itself?

**Edge:** It'd go to the background instance. Benefit of bg worker means bg work can continue.

**Ben:** Firefox in multi process does spin up multiple instances. We pick a process and send it. Try to send to the same process. It can only see the client list in the same process, but patch landing to fix that. We're running this today – no one complaining. Just a consiquence of multi process, couldn't hold back multi process launching.

**Matt:** In Chrome everything goes through centralised model. We ensure order between fetch and postmessage. Ordering might start changing in future.

**Jatinder:** We'll treat this as an implementation detail.

----

**Andrew:** is Edge doing shared workers?

**Ali:** We're not looking at shared workers.

**Andrew:** some people seem to want shared worker.

----

**Jake:** Edge, any thoughts on foreign fetch.

**Ali:** Have same concerns around double keying as Safari. We're worried about it.

**Jatinder:** We're just looking at V1 stuff, not foreign fetch.

**Ali:** SW is now in insiders previews in Edge. If you're interested you can test it.

**Andrew:** Can i use VMs?

**Jatinder:** Browserstack is free.

**Jake:** Shall I remove foreign fetch from the specs until we figure out what we want from it?

**Kenji:** Use-cases are stale-while-revalidate

**Jake:** Shipping real stale-while-revalidate sounds like a better option.

**Ali:** No objections to incubating.

----

**Jake:** v1 cache stuff

**Jungkee:** Going to make addAll resolve on body write, rather than headers right now.

----

**Jake:** I feel like we should have these calls as and when we have things to discuss. Or would people prefer a regular monthly meeting?

**All:** Nah

**Ben:** Opaque size issue. Just be aware.

**Edge:** We've already taken it into account. We don't have a way of estimating the quota.

**Ben:** We have it in development. It's rounded.

**Ali:** we should have a note in the spec about it.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1173#issuecomment-323019578