W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2011

[whatwg] Improvement of the Application Cache

From: Edward Gerhold <edward.gerhold@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 00:40:41 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikh8t-ERCBRGdsbV4Uydz+Hr18m2ycc=dL0g1VV@mail.gmail.com>
Oh, i am so stupid. Ok, i correct myself once again and for the last time.
After this, i go to bed, can sleep, and will
continue with reading the original text again and think about that and how
to put that together, before i write any
mail again.

First of all, i noticed, i forgot the [i] after the .cache, as i listed the
datatypes. Then i laughed internally about myself
coz i?ve gotten it all wrong. After i bound the functions to
applicationCache, i wanted to return the cache entries
as an object to a variable and operate on the entries in the container After
sending the last mail i thought i could
move applicationCache.cache back to applicationCache. I speak here about my
last message.
applicationCache is of course the container of the entries[], i believe, for
being sure i have to read the original again
and that is what i will, afterwards.

The functions of course have to be bound to the container of the entries,
but that will be applicationCache, of course.
This is what i assign to a variable and then i use the functions in the
container for the entries (word from the spec
should be used here).

I am sorry, that i?ve put it out and moved it to the right and sent it to
you.

I am not shure, that filesystem and appcache would conflict. Thinking about
it twice i couldn?t even use that
together, both implementations have not much together. If i get the master
file with cache or with network there
is still nothing blocking my file writer or file reader. Replacing the
master seems not possible to me, that?s all.
I think i can go to bed now, have written enough about the topic, will read
the documentation from scratch,
think about it and mention it later again, before or after you go into last
call and of course long before it becomes
a standard. You should change this before.

I am closing my argumentation now, until you write something. But i hope
you?ll disturb the whatwg a few times
again with, that they?ll enhance the application cache with the possibility
to cache content managers and giving
the chance of expanding or shrinking the cache by a few more api calls.

Good night
Edward
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:40:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC