Re: RfC: Service Workers and "Portable Web Publications for the Open Web Platform"

[Ivan Herman]

Jake,

just to note that Tzviya, who organizes the meetings around TPAC, is on 
vacations until Wednesday morning. We will synchronize then; I hope it is all 
right.

And thanks in advance for your help!

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



> On 5 Oct 2015, at 18:37, Jake Archibald  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 at 13:00 Arthur Barstow  wrote:
>> The IG welcomes discussion and feedback during their October 19
>> conference call (if interested, please contact Tzviya) and/or during
>> TPAC.
> 
> I'm happy to take part in this from a service worker point of view, if 
> timezones add up. What time is it?
>  
>> Although WebApps meets on Monday and Tuesday and the IG meets on
>> Thursday and Friday, if there is interest in a joint meeting, my
>> understanding is that some set of IG members can meet during WebApps'
>> meeting (see agenda at [3] for open slots).
> 
> I'm happy to attend either of IG meets, and I intend to be at the the WebApps 
> meeting on Monday.
> 
> Happy to meet informally too!
>  
>> Alex, Jake, Jungkee - perhaps you could meet with some of the IG members
>> during the October 27 Service Worker meeting. WDYT?
> 
> I think we're already over subscribed on the 27th, would meeting on the dates 
> around that be enough? Happy to make time on evenings if need be.

Re: Indexed DB + Promises

[Joshua Bell]

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I've captured concrete suggestions in
the issue tracker -
https://github.com/inexorabletash/indexeddb-promises/issues



On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Kyle Huey  wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. 
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Domenic Denicola 
> wrote:
> >>> I guess part of the question is, does this add enough value, or will
> authors still prefer wrapper libraries, which can afford to throw away
> backward compatibility in order to avoid these ergonomic problems? From
> that perspective, the addition of waitUntil or a similar primitive to allow
> better control over transaction lifecycle is crucial, since it will enable
> better wrapper libraries. But the .promise and .complete properties end up
> feeling like halfway measures, compared to the usability gains a wrapper
> can achieve. Maybe they are still worthwhile though, despite their flaws.
> You probably have a better sense of what authors have been asking for here
> than I do.
> >>
> >> Remember that the *entire point* of IDB was to provide a "low-level"
> >> set of functionality, and then to add a sugar layer on top once
> >> authors had explored the space a bit and shown what would be most
> >> useful.
> >>
> >> I'd prefer we kept with that approach, and defined a consistent,
> >> easy-to-use sugar layer that's just built with IDB primitives
> >> underneath, rather than trying to upgrade the IDB primitives into more
> >> usable forms that end up being inconsistent or difficult to use.
> >
> > At a bare minimum we need to actually specify how transaction
> > lifetimes interact with tasks, microtasks, etc.  Especially since the
> > behavior differs between Gecko and Blink (or did, the last time I
> > checked).
>

Yeah - "When control is returned to the event loop" isn't precise enough.
It's an open issue in the 2nd Ed. and I welcome suggestions for tightening
it up. Note that Jake Archibald, at least, was happy with the Blink
behavior, after chewing on it for a bit. But it still seems far too subtle
to me, and someone who writes blog posts explaining tasks vs. microtasks is
probably not the average consumer of the API. :)


> >
> > waitUntil() alone is a pretty large change to IDB semantics. Somebody
> > mentioned earlier that you can get this behavior today which is true,
> > but it requires you to continually issue "keep-alive" read requests to
> > the transaction, so it's fairly obvious you aren't using it as
> > intended.
>
> Yeah, any necessary extensions to the underlying "bare" IDB semantics
> that need to be made to support the sugar layer are of course
> appropriate; they indicate an impedance mismatch that we need to
> address for usability.
>

Agreed.  So... I'm looking for additional feedback that the proposal
addresses this mismatch, with both waitUntil() on transactions (kudos to
Alex Russell) and the promise accessors on transactions/requests and minor
cursor tweaks which difficult to get correct today.

RfC: Service Workers and "Portable Web Publications for the Open Web Platform"

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

The Digital Publishing Interest Group [1] is seeking feedback regarding 
the use of Service Workers in their early draft (WIP) of "Portable Web 
Publications for the Open Web Platform", in particular section 5.1 
"General Architecture for Online/Offline Publications":


  

Please note Service Workers is new to the group and the above section 
contains "some preliminary discussion (assumptions?) about Service 
Workers" and the IG "want to make sure that we are headed in the right 
direction, and we have not made incorrect assumptions about Service 
Workers".


If you have any comments about their document please send them to the 
IG's public-digipub-ig list (archive [2]).


The IG welcomes discussion and feedback during their October 19 
conference call (if interested, please contact Tzviya) and/or during 
TPAC. Although WebApps meets on Monday and Tuesday and the IG meets on 
Thursday and Friday, if there is interest in a joint meeting, my 
understanding is that some set of IG members can meet during WebApps' 
meeting (see agenda at [3] for open slots).


Alex, Jake, Jungkee - perhaps you could meet with some of the IG members 
during the October 27 Service Worker meeting. WDYT?


-Thanks, AB

[1] 
[2] 
[3] 

[Bug 28823] Course of action even after Event Source retry failure.

[bugzilla]

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28823

Anne  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |MOVED

--- Comment #4 from Anne  ---
https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/226

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Re: RfC: Service Workers and "Portable Web Publications for the Open Web Platform"

[Jake Archibald]

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 at 13:00 Arthur Barstow  wrote:

> The IG welcomes discussion and feedback during their October 19
> conference call (if interested, please contact Tzviya) and/or during
> TPAC.


I'm happy to take part in this from a service worker point of view, if
timezones add up. What time is it?


> Although WebApps meets on Monday and Tuesday and the IG meets on
> Thursday and Friday, if there is interest in a joint meeting, my
> understanding is that some set of IG members can meet during WebApps'
> meeting (see agenda at [3] for open slots).
>

I'm happy to attend either of IG meets, and I intend to be at the the
WebApps meeting on Monday.

Happy to meet informally too!


> Alex, Jake, Jungkee - perhaps you could meet with some of the IG members
> during the October 27 Service Worker meeting. WDYT?


I think we're already over subscribed on the 27th, would meeting on the
dates around that be enough? Happy to make time on evenings if need be.