Re: [Workers] Worker same-origin and usage in JS libraries...

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > My plan is to make it so that cross-origin URLs start cross-origin
> > workers. The main unresolved question is how to do this in an opt-in
> > manner. The best idea I've come up with so far is having scripts that
> > want to opt-in to being run in such a way start with a line line:
> >
> >    // Cross-Origin Worker for: http://example.net
> >
> > ...or (for multiple domains):
> >
> >    // Cross-Origin Worker for: http://example.com https://example.org
> >
> > ...or (for any domain):
> >
> >    // Cross-Origin Worker for all origins
> >
> > ...but that doesn't seem super neat.
>
> Just as an update, I still plan to do this, but I'm currently waiting for
> browser vendors to more widely implement the existing Worker,
> SharedWorker, MessagePort, and PortCollection features before adding more
> features to this part of the spec. It would also be helpful to have
> confirmation from browser vendors that y'all actually _want_ cross-origin
> workers, before I spec it.
>

The only difference with cross-origin workers is that they're in a
different execution environment, right? If so, seems like a good thing to
support. I don't see any downside and it doesn't sound especially difficult
to implement.


>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>