- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:28:56 -0700
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Drew Wilson<atwilson at google.com> wrote: > > An alternative would be to make the "name" parameter optional, where > > omitting the name would create an unnamed worker that is > identified/shared > > only by its url. > > So pages would only specify the name in cases where they actually want to > > have multiple instances of a shared worker. > > -atw > > This seems like a very good idea. Makes a lot of sense that if two > shared workers have the same uri, you are probably going to interact > with it the same way everywhere. Only in less common cases do you need > to instantiate different workers for the same url, in which case you > can use the name parameter. > This sounds reasonable to me. > > / Jonas > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090819/664e19c2/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 11:28:56 UTC