Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] [Feature request] Allow keeping service worker alive (#1558)

> It seems to me there's an irony here: the browser understandably wants to terminate the SW where possible to save resources, but in this case dealing with that requires using a lot of resources, writing potentially large amounts of data to storage. Isn't keeping the SW alive the less resource intensive option?

RAM is also a resource, and as @wanderview said, users tend to have less of it than disk storage.

Keeping the service worker open will cost CPU and ram. Using the cache API uses disk resources, but those are cheaper in the longer term.

If you're wanting some kind of temporary storage, you might be interested in https://github.com/whatwg/storage/issues/71.

-- 
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/1558#issuecomment-774088932