On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gordon Brander <gbran...@mozilla.com> > wrote: >> >> It's funny: I have come to the opposite conclusion for the same reason. >> >> The Good: getting 60fps interactions and animations in web apps using a >> proven approach (UI and interaction thread). >> The Ideal: also automatically serializing those apps for offline use. > > > I agree with this. > > Also, there is a way to get "save for later viewing" to work with complex > apps: serialize all the application state --- DOM, CSS, JS heap, workers, > etc --- and revive it later, possibly in a jail that blocks it from > accessing the network when revived, but possibly not.
I think this would fall over more often than not. Most developers will not write their code to be resilient in the face of being suspended for extended periods of time. Upon reopening they would likely display error dialogs, or updated version of whatever was saved. In fact, I would argue that it's directly harmful to keep even some of the app logic working. It could cause things like overwriting server state with whatever state was serialized into the saved copy. The usecase here isn't to magically make apps available offline. That's unlikely to ever work well enough that it's worth doing without author cooperation. The use case here is the ability to save some *information* for later access. If I'm about to leave house to visit a friend, i'm interested in saving the directions for getting to that friend. I'm less interested in having an updated facebook feed with me. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
