Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] allow service workers to created nested dedicated workers (#1529)

I think the most practical approach is to require dedicated workers spawned by ServiceWorkers to be controlled by the ServiceWorker that spawned them, including using the routes for that registration.  The ServiceWorker would be responsible for caching the worker scripts, ideally as part of the install phase, but it doesn't seem worth it to try and add enforcement mechanisms for that like we have for ServiceWorker scripts or for the update check mechanism to change.

The spec would also need to be clear that the controlled worker clients should not extend the underlying lifetime of the ServiceWorker similar to how ServiceWorker.postMessage from a ServiceWorker to another ServiceWorker should not extend the lifetime of the recipient ServiceWorker beyond the lifetime of the sender.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1529#issuecomment-2643492051
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1529/2643492051@github.com>