- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:32:17 +0000
- To: James Burke <jrburke@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:22 PM, James Burke <jrburke@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> It seems using a structured clone makes the most sense. Transfering >> objects won't work here. It's not entirely clear to me what the best >> is for Blob, File, etc. Effectively the page can shut down, but they >> will still be kept alive through this Notification. I guess it's not >> too different from what Indexed DB can do. >> >> Is what what we want? > > For my purposes, I was fine limiting to "JSON-serializable", as that > is basically what I got with the iconURL hack we use now. However it > is likely that you have a better idea of what makes sense across the > platform. > > For the email use case for notifications, we expect the app to be > completely removed from memory every so often, so we just want to > store enough simple state to route the action to take for the > notification correctly. The data in that case is more like a GET > querystring. Okay, so maybe we should simply store a JavaScript string instead? No need to play with structured clones if something simple is sufficient I suppose. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 14:32:47 UTC