<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jonas Sicking <span dir="ltr"><jonas@sicking.cc></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Drew Wilson<<a href="mailto:atwilson@google.com">atwilson@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> An alternative would be to make the "name" parameter optional, where<br>
> omitting the name would create an unnamed worker that is identified/shared<br>
> only by its url.<br>
> So pages would only specify the name in cases where they actually want to<br>
> have multiple instances of a shared worker.<br>
> -atw<br>
<br>
</div>This seems like a very good idea. Makes a lot of sense that if two<br>
shared workers have the same uri, you are probably going to interact<br>
with it the same way everywhere. Only in less common cases do you need<br>
to instantiate different workers for the same url, in which case you<br>
can use the name parameter.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This sounds reasonable to me.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<font color="#888888"><br>
/ Jonas<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>