<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ap@webkit.org">ap@webkit.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br></div>
Letting faceless background processes update themselves without user consent is not necessarily desirable. I think that they need browser UI for this, and/or associated HTML configuration pages that could (among other duties) trigger application cache update.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I'd be curious about why you think this is a problem, especially given the existence of importScripts() and XHR which allow workers to load scripts dynamically anyway.</div>
<div><br></div><div>ApplicationCache for persistent workers would enable them to continue running even when offline - I don't see that it introduces any new security/permission wrinkles, though. If you don't provide something like that, then you'll have workers doing things like using XHR to download script, store it in the data store, then eval() it at load time to roll their own manual offline support.</div>
</div><br>