Re: [w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api] The relationship between payment apps and service workers (#33)

[About  **1. Payment apps _are_ service workers** vs **2. Payment apps _inherit from_ service workers**]

I think we could just go with “payment apps _are_ service workers“. I see no need to go with the kind of “Payment apps _inherit from_ service workers” alternative described.

I think that conclusion can be reached pretty clearly from a reading of the Service Workers spec  (especially the parts of the SW spec @jakearchibald cites) and from reading other specs for technologies that build on SW (cited by @dlongley).

> Payment apps are registered exactly the same way as service workers (since they are the same), with `navigator.serviceWorker.register()`.

Yeah, I think there’s no reason to do otherwise, and @dlongley’s snippet shows what it’d look like.

[about “payment apps _are_ service workers”]
> The disadvantage is that we would be "polluting" the `ServiceWorkerGlobalScope` class with functionality that isn't strictly service worker related.

I think reading of the section of the SW spec @jakearchibald cites and a reading of the specs for the existing built-on-SW specs that @dlongley cites makes it clear that adding a new `EventHandler` to `ServiceWorkerGlobalScope` and a new method to `ServiceWorkerRegistration`  would not be seen as bad/polluting but instead is actually exactly how SW was designed to be built on.

-- 
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/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues/33#issuecomment-242895882