- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 04:09:37 +0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>, "lrbabe@gmail.com" <lrbabe@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I like the idea. This would be useful for various things, especially if we could integrate the discovery and selection of this feature (the local proxy Web service) through Web Intents. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan On May 4, 2012, at 6:48 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> An idea I was kicking around for this would be to simplify the three >> points above to instead have just a way to declare a JS file as being a >> local interceptor, and then have that JS file be automatically launched in >> a worker thread, and then every network request gets proxied through that >> worker in some well-defined manner. The worker could then either say "do >> whatever you would normally do for that URL", or "redirect to this URL and >> try again", or "here's the data for that URL". >> >> How does that sound? > > So this is, more or less, running a local server in JS, right? (One > that only the page can talk to, of course.) > > If so, I definitely approve. I think this is a great way to handle > offline webapps, so the front-end can be written to assume that > there's always *something* on the back-end that it can talk to. This > invariant greatly simplifies the mental cost of writing an app, I > think. > > ~TJ >
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 04:10:53 UTC