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 17:19:48 -0700
Message-ID: <c75952c20706291719n77106942o5368bca9912f7b84@mail.gmail.com>
But it does place a very large burdon on the servers. Google would expect to
have quite a few applications and my guess is the last thing we would want
is to keep pinging every application to see if it up to date whenever any
application is used.

In fact while we want to make sure the user has the most up to date version
we don't need to check on every use. In most cases the current captured
version will be fine. The only time that is not the case is when the old
version has been made obsolete by a newer version. Unfortunately this can
occur at anytime, including when the application is running. So in that case
the server needs to tell the client application that it has to force an
immediate reload. So the client can always run the currently saved app,
check for updates at a convenient time (and in reality not too often).

As for shared code, I believe it is a problem but one that can be ignored
right now. It does require each app to host all of its own pages. To do
anything else moves us in the direction of shared libraies which will open
up a can of worms that can be avoided for now.


On Jun 29, 2007 3:34 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/30/07, Andy Palay <ajpalay at google.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Simplicity, mainly. Scoping updates (and the offlineResources list) to the
> domain level means we don't have to define a new abstraction that delimits
> application boundaries. And it lets us avoid any issues with partially
> overlapping applications.
>
> Rob
> --
> "Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred
> denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back,
> so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
> Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled." "You
> have judged correctly," Jesus said. [Luke 7:41-43]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070629/95244501/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 17:19:48 UTC

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