[whatwg] Gears design goals
ajpalay at google.com
Fri Jun 29 13:07:51 PDT 2007
On Jun 26, 2007 4:26 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On 6/27/07, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:
> > Great! So where do we differ on the implementation of those goals? Is
> > there an up-to-date spec I can read?
> Right now I think we're missing just one thing from your list of goals
> (excluding the vexatious "multiple resources for one URI" goal): a way to
> get consistent updates without relying on JAR files (and hence changing
> URIs). As I mentioned earlier, I think we can get that by simply stating
> (and implementing!) that updates to all offline-cached resources in a domain
> --- that were requested by pages in the same domain --- occur atomically as
> a group, similar to what Gears does. That leaves one issue, which is the
> ability to add new resources as part of such an atomic update; to get that,
> we probably should add an offline-manifest DOM API or <link> type, which
> pulls in a JSON manifest and requests all the resources in it.
> So I don't know why one would want to maintain atomicity at the domain
level as opposed to the application level. When I run an application I want
to make sure I get the latest version of the application. Not sure why it
would mean that I want to make sure that I update all the applications from
that domain. This could place an unnecessary load on the servers for no
great gain for the user. Am I missing something?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg