- From: Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:58:45 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 17:59:15 UTC
> 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