Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] Allow caches to opt-in to granular cleanup (#863)

> [F]or Workbox requirements

When I wrote this, I meant functional requirements to make cache expiration work (as in: *"What data does Workbox need for its cache expiration logic?"*); and not so much the way it's currently implemented and working. Sorry for not formulating the question more clearly.

@jeffposnick, I get that the current model is battle-tested and working well, yet as @philipwalton writes in his first bullet, the current experience for developers if they want to implement cache expiration themselves (*i.e.*, not using Workbox) is not great.

So with your "Workbox implementor glasses" off `:-)   B`, but your "experience gained through implementing Workbox glasses" on `B-)`, would you *(i)* rather want IDB to be able to store `Response`s and `Request`s (including the aspects brought up in @philipwalton's second bullet), or *(ii)* to have more metadata primitives in the Cache API?

-- 
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/863#issuecomment-434203309