- From: Mike Shaver <mike.shaver@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:44:46 -0400
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jim Jewett<jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote: >> Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a "url" parameter and a "name" >> parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using the >> same script resource without having to load separate resources from the >> server. > >> [ request that name be scoped to the URL, rather than the entire origin, >> because not all parts of example.com can easily co-ordinate.] > > Would there be a problem with using URL fragments to distinguish the workers? > > Instead of: > ? ?new SharedWorker("url.js", "name"); > > Use > ? ?new SharedWorker("url.js#name"); > and if you want a duplicate, call it > ? ?new SharedWorker("url.js#name2"); > > The normal semantics of fragments should prevent the repeated server fetch. I don't think that it's very natural for the name to be derived from the URL that way. Ignoring that we're not really identifying a fragment, it seems much less self-documenting than a name parameter. I would certainly expect, from reading that syntax, for the #part to be calling out a sub-script (property or function or some such) rather than changing how the SharedWorker referencing it is named! Mike
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 14:44:46 UTC