Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] provide a way to execute work after browser has consumed a response (#1397)

> I'd rather see the browser expose the primitive than a higher level wrapper that restricts its use if you want to use it for different use cases.
I agree with that. And I would be fine with `evt.responded`. I just don't see a scenario in which having `evt.responded` is more useful than `afterResponse`. In what kind of scenario would you want to call `evt.waitUntil` rather than `evt.afterResponse` for a fetch event? In other words, what kind of operation isn't directly related to responding, but you want started before the response is complete?

If we do want to better support the case where `responded` operations are dependent on `waitUntil` operations, then I do agree it makes sense to have `evt.responded` instead of `afterResponse`.

-- 
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/1397#issuecomment-479053889