Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] consider allowing a non-scope identifier for registrations (#1512)

> > postMessage-ing a ServiceWorker which potentially could bring both processes and threads into existence and involve evaluating megabytes of JS to avoid exposing a string identifier seems like a bad battery trade-off?
> 
> This could be optimised, say service worker at install time adds its scope and version in some database.

xref https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1331 and in particular Asa's comment https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1331#issuecomment-403575004 which cited latencies of up to 1 second with IndexedDB.  Also xref https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1157

-- 
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/1512#issuecomment-710175524