Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] Soft Update seems way to aggressive (#1250)

@gaearon

> If this problem didn’t exist in Chrome

Just to clarify, the problem you're referring to is Chrome caching the SW script as per HTTP rules (with a max-age cap of 1 day), right?

This *was* a spec problem. I guess we underestimated how many developers don't have control over their caching headers, and thought the 1 day cap was enough to avoid the foot-gun.

My previous take was "You can fight HTTP caching with a service worker, but it's much better to get your basic HTTP stuff in order before attempting service workers", and while that's still true, we decided to do more to help devs that don't have control over caching headers, which is why we introduced [`updateViaCache`](https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#dom-registrationoptions-updateviacache) with a default of "imports".

-- 
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/1250#issuecomment-358250144