Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] Expose GeoLocation to workers (#745)

> > They're designed to wake up for an event, briefly handle it, then go away. This should be especially brief if the user doesn't have a tab open to the site.
> No they are _not_. This has been explained to you many times before by wonderfully talented people like [Ben](https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/840). Simply repeating a lie/conjecture over and over does not make it any the more true.

But I'm one of the editors and designers of service workers (@wanderview is another designer), so I know a thing or two about what they were designed for 😄 . The link you provide doesn't 'disprove' what I'm saying. Browsers have a grace period to avoid additional startup costs, but service workers are terminated when they aren't needed.

> over [here](https://github.com/WICG/BackgroundSync/issues/141#issuecomment-306433580) was not wasted on anyone.

This doesn't appear to be related. The situation there is the same. Wake up for an event, terminate once complete.

> if the two quoted implementations are anything to go by, it simply doesn't happen. I'm not sure if you're FUDding intentionally or you simply don't understand the performance benefits of Service Worker recycling.

I am one of the people that designed what you call "service worker recycling". However, this does not mean workers can remain active for long periods of time when tabs are closed. Both Chrome and Firefox will terminate service workers when they're inactive.

Like I said in another thread, you should consider for a moment that you might not be the only non-idiot on the planet, and the source of your frustration may be your own lack of understanding. I empathise as I also engage in areas of development I'm less familiar with, but I increase my understanding by politely asking questions, and ensuring I test & understand conditions before declaring myself an authority – I've found this to be the quickest way to learn, and the best way to effect change.

I appreciate you made efforts to avoid being what I'd call an arsehole… briefly, but if you want to continue this conversation you're going to have to give it another go and stick with it.

I've abandoned responding to your post, but I'd happily continue if you apologise and restate your questions in a non-aggressive and polite manner. But do realise that I have no professional obligation to engage with you, so if you want to be heard (and it sounds like you're pretty eager to be), it's on those terms. Otherwise we'll have to wait for someone reasonable to discuss the features you're interested in.

-- 
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/745#issuecomment-306505910