- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:11:25 +0000
- To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- CC: public-webapps WG <public-Webapps@w3.org>
On 2/7/11 4:43 PM, Scott Wilson wrote: > > On 7 Feb 2011, at 14:22, Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Scott Wilson >> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I really like the Kill Switch/EOL idea and having a "type" >>> attribute to specify it, but I'm concerned that the Patch type >>> could be a bit more problematic to get consistently implemented. >>> >> >> Understood. What concerns are you having or what interop issues do >> you foresee? > > Principally the handling of the various update states, rollbacks > after failing to apply patches, problems with > multiple-version-spanning patch updates that kind of thing. > > Also when we unpack a widget and ready it, its no longer exactly the > same as the input .wgt so we'd have to apply the patch against the > originally imported package rather than the actual installed instance > and then load it again or the patch won't take - so we may as well > update the whole package anyway. Both excellent issues. > Its not a bad idea in principle, but potentially a lot of code to > save a few kb of downloading. I agree. For small widgets this is not an issue. It's for big widgets where it becomes a problem. It might be that the user agent could do negotiation (e.g., "I don't support patches and have plenty of bandwidth, just send me the whole thing"). -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 18:12:04 UTC