W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2015

Re: WebRTC Data Channel in Workers Proposal

From: Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:58:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+nRABmZmTY03VwPy2dYzonCvHb29ZmxJmg+iQtw9TzuKZ+WYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
> This proposal needs considerably more substance.  For instance, the
> implementation of something like this in a ServiceWorker in particular
> is not suited to the lifecycle model of service workers.

WebSockets are available in ServiceWorker. WebRTC Data Channels aren't
substantively different than WebSockets - long lived socket-like
connections. They even have the same API. Let's just treat them the same
way WebSockets are treated in Workers.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:46 PM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 26 May 2015 at 08:08, Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org> wrote:
> > I would like to propose that we support WebRTC Data Channel in Workers
> > (`WebWorker`, `ServiceWorker`, etc.)
>
>
> This proposal needs considerably more substance.  For instance, the
> implementation of something like this in a ServiceWorker in particular
> is not suited to the lifecycle model of service workers.
>
> I get the reasons that this is attractive: it's superfiially very
> attractive.  But I think that we need to carefully consider how we
> move something of this complexity.
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 17:59:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:44 UTC