Re: WebRTC Data Channel in Workers Proposal

>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.


Agreed. This kind of capability is interesting but I can appreciate the
complexity.

Personally, I could imagine that some more experience and evolution of the
Service Worker is good to have before taking the next step towards also
exposing the Data Channel in a Service Worker-Œsh like worker. Personally,
I would also prefer to have the Œlow-level¹ API in place before taking
this step.

>