W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2007

[whatwg] Gears design goals

From: Andy Palay <ajpalay@google.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:07:51 -0700
Message-ID: <c75952c20706291307rfb7d03eo1b116e66a3632c9e@mail.gmail.com>
On Jun 26, 2007 4:26 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/27/07, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:
>
> > Great! So where do we differ on the implementation of those goals? Is
> > there an up-to-date spec I can read?
>
>
> http://www.campd.org/stuff/Offline%20Cache.html
>
> Right now I think we're missing just one thing from your list of goals
> (excluding the vexatious "multiple resources for one URI" goal): a way to
> get consistent updates without relying on JAR files (and hence changing
> URIs). As I mentioned earlier, I think we can get that by simply stating
> (and implementing!) that updates to all offline-cached resources in a domain
> --- that were requested by pages in the same domain ---  occur atomically as
> a group, similar to what Gears does. That leaves one issue, which is the
> ability to add new resources as part of such an atomic update; to get that,
> we probably should add an offline-manifest DOM API or <link> type, which
> pulls in a JSON manifest and requests all the resources in it.
>
> So I don't know why one would want to maintain atomicity at the domain
level as opposed to the application level. When I run an application I want
to make sure I get the latest version of the application. Not sure why it
would mean that I want to make sure that I update all the applications from
that domain. This could place an unnecessary load on the servers for no
great gain for the user. Am I missing something?

Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070629/0774b258/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 13:07:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:56 UTC