Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] Should update() always reject if there is an installing worker? (#1429)

For history, discussions about this step were at: #800 #1155

In my opinion, it's easy to avoid calling update() in an installing worker. It's harder to avoid calling update() when there is any installing worker, so throwing can be surprising and you'll end up with code like: ```if (!registration.installing) { registration.update(); }``` which seems cumbersome.

I'm feeling now update() when there is an installing worker should just be coalesced into that ongoing job and dropped silently without triggering a new update.

-- 
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/1429#issuecomment-500267846