New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relax top-level service worker requirement #147

Closed
jeffposnick opened this Issue Jul 29, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jeffposnick
Collaborator

jeffposnick commented Jul 29, 2016

As per w3c/ServiceWorker#839 (comment), it sounds like the service worker specification will be updated to allow any byte-by-byte changes to importScripts() resources to trigger the Install flow. This opens the door towards allowing developers to pull in sw-precache's output via importScripts() instead of forcing them to use it as their top-level service worker.

It also might open the door to some of the refactoring that @gauntface has advocated for in #43 and elsewhere.

This all will depend on browsers shipping service worker implementations that adhere to the new behavior, so this issue is more of a long-term reminder than anything immediately actionable.

CC: @addyosmani @wibblymat

@gauntface

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gauntface

gauntface Jul 29, 2016

Member

This is very exciting :)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, 11:43 Jeffrey Posnick, notifications@github.com
wrote:

As per w3c/ServiceWorker#839 (comment)
w3c/ServiceWorker#839 (comment),
it sounds like the service worker specification will be updated to allow
any byte-by-byte changes to importScripts() resources to trigger the
Install flow. This opens the door towards allowing developers to pull in
sw-precache's output via importScripts() instead of forcing them to use
it as their top-level service worker.

It also might open the door to some of the refactoring that @gauntface
https://github.com/gauntface has advocated for in #43
#43 and elsewhere.

This all will depend on browsers shipping service worker implementations
that adhere to the new behavior, so this issue is more of a long-term
reminder than anything immediately actionable.

CC: @addyosmani https://github.com/addyosmani @wibblymat
https://github.com/wibblymat


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#147, or mute the
thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIh8B2QzDPkzwuRn-wBFuS25z1f2YIlks5qakm2gaJpZM4JYdrg
.

Member

gauntface commented Jul 29, 2016

This is very exciting :)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, 11:43 Jeffrey Posnick, notifications@github.com
wrote:

As per w3c/ServiceWorker#839 (comment)
w3c/ServiceWorker#839 (comment),
it sounds like the service worker specification will be updated to allow
any byte-by-byte changes to importScripts() resources to trigger the
Install flow. This opens the door towards allowing developers to pull in
sw-precache's output via importScripts() instead of forcing them to use
it as their top-level service worker.

It also might open the door to some of the refactoring that @gauntface
https://github.com/gauntface has advocated for in #43
#43 and elsewhere.

This all will depend on browsers shipping service worker implementations
that adhere to the new behavior, so this issue is more of a long-term
reminder than anything immediately actionable.

CC: @addyosmani https://github.com/addyosmani @wibblymat
https://github.com/wibblymat


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#147, or mute the
thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIh8B2QzDPkzwuRn-wBFuS25z1f2YIlks5qakm2gaJpZM4JYdrg
.

@addyosmani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@addyosmani

addyosmani Sep 15, 2016

Contributor

👍 . @jeffposnick I wasn't able to locate a Chromium bug on the related ServiceWorker thread to track when we might be able to switch to the ideas in #43. Do you know if one has been filed yet?

Contributor

addyosmani commented Sep 15, 2016

👍 . @jeffposnick I wasn't able to locate a Chromium bug on the related ServiceWorker thread to track when we might be able to switch to the ideas in #43. Do you know if one has been filed yet?

@jeffposnick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeffposnick

jeffposnick Sep 15, 2016

Collaborator

I haven't seen one. I'll ask around internally to make sure it's on the Chrome engineering team's radar.

Collaborator

jeffposnick commented Sep 15, 2016

I haven't seen one. I'll ask around internally to make sure it's on the Chrome engineering team's radar.

@jeffposnick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeffposnick

jeffposnick Sep 19, 2016

Collaborator

The pre-requisite functionality is tracked in Chrome at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=648295
and in Firefox at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1290951

Collaborator

jeffposnick commented Sep 19, 2016

The pre-requisite functionality is tracked in Chrome at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=648295
and in Firefox at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1290951

@jeffposnick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeffposnick

jeffposnick Jun 12, 2017

Collaborator

Developers who need this functionality are encouraged to migrate to https://workboxjs.org/

That has superseded any plans to rewrite sw-precache to add in this functionality.

Collaborator

jeffposnick commented Jun 12, 2017

Developers who need this functionality are encouraged to migrate to https://workboxjs.org/

That has superseded any plans to rewrite sw-precache to add in this functionality.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment