On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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?
Hmm.. actually navigator.connect() does actually partially address this problem. It allows site A to talk to site B without using fetch() at all. Thus enabling A to avoid using the A SW at all. Though that particular goal could be reached by adding some of the optimizations that we talked about early on in SWs design. I.e. the ability for a SW to add rules like "for this set of URLs, never wake me up and instead go directly to the network". Again, there's still an important difference in syntax, which might accomplish some other goals that you are aiming for? / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
