- From: Domenic Denicola <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 22:47:13 +0000 (UTC)
- To: w3c/ServiceWorker <ServiceWorker@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 7 January 2019 22:47:37 UTC
I apologize that this is not a very substantial contribution, but I think I'm having an allergic reaction to the "Java-esque" (or Dart-esque) nested class constructors. I'd encourage thinking about what this design would look like if done in the opposite direction: a purely JSON format. For example, something like ```js router.route([ { condition: { method: "GET", urlStartsWith: "/avatars" }, destination: ["cache", "network"] }, { condition: { method: "GET", urlPathEndsWith: ".mp4" } destination: ["network"] }, { condition: { method: "GET", urlPath: "/" }, destination: [{ cache: "/shell.html" }] } ]); ``` I don't think this extreme is right either (in particular the `[{ cache: "/shell.html" }]` seems weird and underdeveloped) but I think it'd be a valuable exercise to see what it would look like to have a purely declarative routing format expressed just in JS objects. Then, you could figure out where it would make sense to strategically convert some POJSOs into class instances, versus where the POJSOs are simpler. -- 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/1373#issuecomment-452109592
Received on Monday, 7 January 2019 22:47:37 UTC