> "the most appropriate app cache should be used" A little off topic... the spec says that in regard to appcache selection in general, its not specific to workers. That squishiness should probably be better defined at some point.
2009/6/2 Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com>: > > Basically, the spec says "the most appropriate app cache should be used" > (which apparently we're free to interpret however we like), and that the > SharedWorker should have the ability to update its current app cache. I > think that the spec is fine. > As for our implementation - I don't know how appcache is integrated with the > loader code. Can I proxy a load to a given document, but still specify which > version of the app cache I want to use? If so, then we don't need to change > the > design. If not, we either need to add this support, or delay exposing appcache APIs to SharedWorkers until we add the ability to load data from worker context without going through a document object (probably required for persistent workers). > -atw > > 2009/6/2 Alexey Proskuryakov <a...@webkit.org> >> >> 02.06.2009, в 21:59, Michael Nordman написал(а): >> >>> Per the spec, shared workers are a distinct "browsing context". In >>> appcache terms, they have a distinct "appcache host". We have to come >>> up with a design that accomplishes that. >> >> >> OK, I was getting a feeling that we talked about different things. Andrew, >> do you agree that a different design is needed, or is this something we >> should push into the spec instead? >> >> - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov >> >> > > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
