- From: Andy Palay <ajpalay@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:07:51 -0700
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