On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:02 PM, <slightly...@google.com> wrote: >> 2) Users could more easily write infinite loops between SWs, since at no >> point would they be guaranteed to bottom out at the network. > > I'm more worried about the memory implications for low-spec devices of the > russian-doll design for SW fetches. We've avoided it thus far for these > reasons.
How does navigator.connect() address this problem? In Ehsan's proposal SW from site A would do a fetch() which starts the SW from site B. In the navigator.connect() proposal the SW from site A would do a navigator.connect() which starts the SW from site B. So the same number of SWs seem to be started, the only difference is the API that's used to start them, no? You'd even have the same russian-doll problem since the SW which got launched when navigator.connect() was called, might in turn use navigator.connect() to trigger further SWs as far as I can tell? Generally speaking, it seems like we're talking about a difference in syntax, not a difference in which SWs or which actors are involved. But I do agree that the difference in syntax is quite important. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
