W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2013

Re: [whatwg] Notifications: usage feedback

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:32:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CADnb78hNfu4fSqW9FQs-xxkXoNm4rfjR+4mpGAUb8msoaWSizw@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:12 UTC