Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 12/16/13 12:53 PM, ext James Graham wrote: On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 which says that http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera and Chrome. So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again once all the bugs have been fixed, yes? Yes. I have found another couple of trivial bugs in the tests which I will fix up. I will also have a got at fixing Ms2ger's test runner to work in a better way, sort out some way to automate the visual output, and hopefully we can generate a new implementation report with minimal effort. So, I made a sample implementation report [1] using an in-browser test runner based on Ms2ger's earlier work (see public-test-infra for more details). The browsers are those that happened to be on my computer. I don't intend for anyone to take these results as authoritative, and more work is needed, but it is much better than editing a wiki. And has revealed yet more bugs in the tests. In time we can use this approach in collaboration with vendors to fully automate generating implementation reports. [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/workers.html James - this is excellent! Did you run the tests via http://www.w3c-test.org/testrunner/workers/? What would it take to include Travis's IE results? No, this is based on a new-ish tool that itself depends on the self-hosted-tests changes [1]. If Travis can make the results available in the same JSON format the tool uses then we can incorporate them directly; having a common, machine-writable format is the essential point of this work. However I would suggest that he waits until we fix the broken tests and land the self-hosted-tests changes and test runner / report generator. If people are interesting in speeding this process up, the most valuable thing they can do is help finish the review at [1]. [1] https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/368 OK, thanks for the clarification. I see r/368 is now 93% complete so hopefully this will be completed RSN ;-). -AB
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 which says that http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera and Chrome. So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again once all the bugs have been fixed, yes? Yes. I have found another couple of trivial bugs in the tests which I will fix up. I will also have a got at fixing Ms2ger's test runner to work in a better way, sort out some way to automate the visual output, and hopefully we can generate a new implementation report with minimal effort. So, I made a sample implementation report [1] using an in-browser test runner based on Ms2ger's earlier work (see public-test-infra for more details). The browsers are those that happened to be on my computer. I don't intend for anyone to take these results as authoritative, and more work is needed, but it is much better than editing a wiki. And has revealed yet more bugs in the tests. In time we can use this approach in collaboration with vendors to fully automate generating implementation reports. [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/workers.html
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 which says that http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera and Chrome. So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again once all the bugs have been fixed, yes? Yes. I have found another couple of trivial bugs in the tests which I will fix up. I will also have a got at fixing Ms2ger's test runner to work in a better way, sort out some way to automate the visual output, and hopefully we can generate a new implementation report with minimal effort. So, I made a sample implementation report [1] using an in-browser test runner based on Ms2ger's earlier work (see public-test-infra for more details). The browsers are those that happened to be on my computer. I don't intend for anyone to take these results as authoritative, and more work is needed, but it is much better than editing a wiki. And has revealed yet more bugs in the tests. In time we can use this approach in collaboration with vendors to fully automate generating implementation reports. [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/workers.html James - this is excellent! Did you run the tests via http://www.w3c-test.org/testrunner/workers/? What would it take to include Travis's IE results? -Thanks, ArtB
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote: On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 which says that http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera and Chrome. So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again once all the bugs have been fixed, yes? Yes. I have found another couple of trivial bugs in the tests which I will fix up. I will also have a got at fixing Ms2ger's test runner to work in a better way, sort out some way to automate the visual output, and hopefully we can generate a new implementation report with minimal effort. So, I made a sample implementation report [1] using an in-browser test runner based on Ms2ger's earlier work (see public-test-infra for more details). The browsers are those that happened to be on my computer. I don't intend for anyone to take these results as authoritative, and more work is needed, but it is much better than editing a wiki. And has revealed yet more bugs in the tests. In time we can use this approach in collaboration with vendors to fully automate generating implementation reports. [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/workers.html James - this is excellent! Did you run the tests via http://www.w3c-test.org/testrunner/workers/? What would it take to include Travis's IE results? No, this is based on a new-ish tool that itself depends on the self-hosted-tests changes [1]. If Travis can make the results available in the same JSON format the tool uses then we can incorporate them directly; having a common, machine-writable format is the essential point of this work. However I would suggest that he waits until we fix the broken tests and land the self-hosted-tests changes and test runner / report generator. If people are interesting in speeding this process up, the most valuable thing they can do is help finish the review at [1]. [1] https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/368
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:42:15 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: One of the issues here is `missing data`. Indeed. The first Call for workers Test Results was sent over a half-year ago and another one a few weeks before WebApps' Shenzhen meeting. Despite those requests, the workers implementation report [IR] remains empty. Simon - would you please add results for Presto? Done. First I ran the tests using https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/test-runner/src on a local server, but then I couldn't think of a straight-forward way to put the results in the wiki so I just ran the tests manually, too. :-( Since most tests are automated it's silly to run them manually and edit a wiki page. Is there a better way? I also found a bug in a test https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24074 (Actually there were several tests with bugs but I didn't investigate further.) Kinuko - would you please add results for Chrome (as you said you would do in Shenzhen [Mins])? Travis - would you please add results for IE? Another issue is that during the related discussion in Shenzhen, I don't think this new info from Jonas was available. Jonas - can someone please run the tests on FF Nightly (see [IR] or the test suite [Tests])? Depending on the test results, it might make sense to (re)consider if it still makes sense to create a spec of without shared workers. -Thanks, ArtB [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers [Tests] http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/ [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/12-webapps-minutes.html#item08 -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 12/12/13 7:31 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:42:15 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: The first Call for workers Test Results was sent over a half-year ago and another one a few weeks before WebApps' Shenzhen meeting. Despite those requests, the workers implementation report [IR] remains empty. Simon - would you please add results for Presto? Done. Great and thanks (and thanks to Travis too for the IE results)! First I ran the tests using https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/test-runner/src on a local server, but then I couldn't think of a straight-forward way to put the results in the wiki so I just ran the tests manually, too. :-( Since most tests are automated it's silly to run them manually and edit a wiki page. Is there a better way? Re automated running, there is http://w3c-test.org/framework/app/suite but I think it is considered obsolete (and isn't maintained). Test automation is/was on Tobie's ToDo list. I'll followup separately about the status on public-test-infra. (Re using a wiki for the implementation report, to produce the Web Messaging and Web Sockets implementation reports, I created a script that merges tests results from individual runs and outputs the wiki table syntax.) I also found a bug in a test https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24074 (Actually there were several tests with bugs but I didn't investigate further.) It would be useful to include that info in the Comments column. Would you please do that or give me the list of tests with bugs so I can add that info? (I suppose the test bugs info should also be on GH.) -Thanks, ArtB
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
Redirecting this conversation to public-test-infra.
On 12/12/13 13:01, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 12/12/13 7:31 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote:
First I ran the tests using
https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/test-runner/src on a local server, but
then I couldn't think of a straight-forward way to put the results in
the wiki so I just ran the tests manually, too. :-( Since most tests
are automated it's silly to run them manually and edit a wiki page. Is
there a better way?
Re automated running, there is http://w3c-test.org/framework/app/suite
but I think it is considered obsolete (and isn't maintained). Test
automation is/was on Tobie's ToDo list. I'll followup separately about
the status on public-test-infra.
Ms2ger has a simple in-browser runner which we could adapt to use a
top-level browsing context rather than an iframe, and to use the
manifest file generated by the script in review at [1].
(Re using a wiki for the implementation report, to produce the Web
Messaging and Web Sockets implementation reports, I created a script
that merges tests results from individual runs and outputs the wiki
table syntax.)
Yeah, so I forsee this taking longer to output than to actually do the
run (which I can fully automate for gecko). We should agree on a simple
format that can be produced by any kind of automated runner and make a
tool that can turn that format into an implementation report. Something like
[{test_id:string|list, status:string, subtests:[{name:string,
status:string}]}]
Seems like it would work fine. The test id would either by the url to
the top-level test file or the list [test_url, cmp, ref_url] for
reftests. The harness status would be something like OK|TIMEOUT|ERROR
and the subtest statuses would be something like PASS|FAIL|TIMEOUT|NOTRUN.
If we do something like this I can likely organise for such output to be
automatically generated for every testrun on gecko, so producing an
implementation report for any feature would just be a matter of
importing the data from the latest nightly build.
[1] https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/440
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: On 12/11/13 6:39 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe thursday) and will hit release on April 29th. Excellent. Yes indeed! Indeed! So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd implementation, then we might already be good. The premise here appears to be that Presto doesn't count. Why? Presto has been shipping shared workers for 3,5 years now (introduced in Opera 10.60). As far as I can tell Presto-based Opera products match the definition of implementation in the CR exit criteria. One of the issues here is `missing data`. The first Call for workers Test Results was sent over a half-year ago and another one a few weeks before WebApps' Shenzhen meeting. Despite those requests, the workers implementation report [IR] remains empty. Simon - would you please add results for Presto? Kinuko - would you please add results for Chrome (as you said you would do in Shenzhen [Mins])? Done. Travis - would you please add results for IE? Another issue is that during the related discussion in Shenzhen, I don't think this new info from Jonas was available. Jonas - can someone please run the tests on FF Nightly (see [IR] or the test suite [Tests])? Depending on the test results, it might make sense to (re)consider if it still makes sense to create a spec of without shared workers. -Thanks, ArtB [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers [Tests] http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/ [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/12-webapps-minutes.html#item08
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 which says that http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera and Chrome. So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again once all the bugs have been fixed, yes? -Boris
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 which says that http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera and Chrome. So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again once all the bugs have been fixed, yes? Yes. I have found another couple of trivial bugs in the tests which I will fix up. I will also have a got at fixing Ms2ger's test runner to work in a better way, sort out some way to automate the visual output, and hopefully we can generate a new implementation report with minimal effort.
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:14:35 +0100, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the spec itself. I'm afraid that won't be enough; if you two implementations passing all approved tests you need to remove the spec for dedicated workers also. Safest is probably to remove the whole spec and all the tests, then we'll have 100% pass rate. Seriously though, I really don't understand the motivation here. I'd rather we remove the first exit criteria than try to punch conformance holes in the spec for failing tests. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe thursday) and will hit release on April 29th. Excellent. So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd implementation, then we might already be good. The premise here appears to be that Presto doesn't count. Why? Presto has been shipping shared workers for 3,5 years now (introduced in Opera 10.60). As far as I can tell Presto-based Opera products match the definition of implementation in the CR exit criteria. That said, I don't know what the test suite status is etc, so I'm totally fine with punting Shared Workers for now. The test suite coverage is about the same between dedicated workers and shared workers, I believe. However I'd really like to see us start a level 2 of the spec. The synchronous messaging channels is something else I'd like to see done there. / Jonas -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 12/11/13 6:39 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe thursday) and will hit release on April 29th. Excellent. Yes indeed! So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd implementation, then we might already be good. The premise here appears to be that Presto doesn't count. Why? Presto has been shipping shared workers for 3,5 years now (introduced in Opera 10.60). As far as I can tell Presto-based Opera products match the definition of implementation in the CR exit criteria. One of the issues here is `missing data`. The first Call for workers Test Results was sent over a half-year ago and another one a few weeks before WebApps' Shenzhen meeting. Despite those requests, the workers implementation report [IR] remains empty. Simon - would you please add results for Presto? Kinuko - would you please add results for Chrome (as you said you would do in Shenzhen [Mins])? Travis - would you please add results for IE? Another issue is that during the related discussion in Shenzhen, I don't think this new info from Jonas was available. Jonas - can someone please run the tests on FF Nightly (see [IR] or the test suite [Tests])? Depending on the test results, it might make sense to (re)consider if it still makes sense to create a spec of without shared workers. -Thanks, ArtB [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers [Tests] http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/ [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/12-webapps-minutes.html#item08
RE: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] wrote: Travis - would you please add results for IE? Done. Note: IE's implementation generates a Syntax Error on 'new Worker(#)' which causes a huge chunk of these tests to fail, where otherwise, I think we would be passing them if we could actually start the worker. [IR] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers [Tests] http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/ [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/12-webapps-minutes.html#item08
Workers v2 (Was: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec)
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Jonas Sicking wrote: However I'd really like to see us start a level 2 of the spec. The synchronous messaging channels is something else I'd like to see done there. There's seven features I'm aware of that people have asked for that aren't in Workers currently, or are specced in a way people don't want: - Synchronous message channels This has been proposed several times on this list, but so far I've only seen interest from Mozilla. This is currently not on my radar, since there's no outstanding e-mail on this topic that was sent to the WHATWG list, and no bug is assigned to me on this topic as far as I can tell. The last proposal that I am aware of is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0686.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0142.html - Inline workers (inline as in specified by script in HTML) Waiting for implementation interest: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22700 - Canvas in Workers There's been various proposals, including one in the spec that hasn't met with implementor approval; I'm waiting for something to get traction amongst the competing proposals. - Being clearer about what features are visible in workers Blocked on: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22646 - Cross-origin workers Waiting for implementations to implement the other features first: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0617.html - Real-time support Waiting for implementation interest: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Dec/0272.html - A worker to intercept the fetch logic Alex is working on this; I haven't been following it: https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/blob/master/README.md If any of them have multiple vendors on board, let me know, and I'll spec them. I try to keep the spec not too far ahead of the browsers. Incidentally, I found this interesting: https://gist.github.com/tobeytailor/2693804 ...especially in the context of: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0678.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0695.html If this kind of thing is indeed feasible (I haven't studied it closely), it might make the need for sync APIs more moot. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Workers v2 (Was: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec)
- Canvas in Workers There's been various proposals, including one in the spec that hasn't met with implementor approval; I'm waiting for something to get traction amongst the competing proposals. - Being clearer about what features are visible in workers Blocked on: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22646 I have proposed several times about allowing to create PeerConnection and DataChannel objects from inside a Worker, don't know if that request falls into the what features are visible topic or if it's a special case like the canvas... https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/discuss-webrtc/-bOW_hhs28E
Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the spec itself. It is my intention to start this work soon. My question for the group-should I transplant the Shared Worker spec prose into a separate REC-track editor's document, or simply remove it outright? (Removing it would be easier of course :0) [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/709 [2] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20131112#l-661 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-workers-20120501/
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:14:35 +0100, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the spec itself. It is my intention to start this work soon. My question for the group-should I transplant the Shared Worker spec prose into a separate REC-track editor's document, or simply remove it outright? (Removing it would be easier of course :0) And of course, I'd love to see you do the work of putting it into a new spec for the Rec-track, especially if you're able to follow up on editing it. As a chair and personally, I'd love to see someone volunteer to take that work and move it faster than you can... cheers [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/709 [2] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20131112#l-661 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-workers-20120501/ -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe thursday) and will hit release on April 29th. So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd implementation, then we might already be good. That said, I don't know what the test suite status is etc, so I'm totally fine with punting Shared Workers for now. However I'd really like to see us start a level 2 of the spec. The synchronous messaging channels is something else I'd like to see done there. / Jonas On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the spec itself. It is my intention to start this work soon. My question for the group—should I transplant the Shared Worker spec prose into a separate REC-track editor’s document, or simply remove it outright? (Removing it would be easier of course :0) [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/709 [2] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20131112#l-661 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-workers-20120501/
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
On 10/12/13 21:09, Jonas Sicking wrote: We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe thursday) and will hit release on April 29th. So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd implementation, then we might already be good. That said, I don't know what the test suite status is etc, so I'm totally fine with punting Shared Workers for now. There are certainly some tests for Shared Workers (see [1] and subdirectories), although of course it is always possible to have more tests. [1] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/workers
Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec
As the specification was more written for browser targets I'm not sure if it count for an implementation to you but note that Shared Worker, as well as dedicated workers, are also implemented natively on the server in Wakanda since few versions and often used in this context. see: http://doc.wakanda.org/Workers/Shared-Web-Workers-parent.201-688512.en.html -- Alexandre On 10 déc. 2013, at 22:09, Jonas Sicking wrote: We at Mozilla just finished our implementation of Shared Workers. It will be turned on in the nightly releases starting tomorrow (or maybe thursday) and will hit release on April 29th. So if we are only reason we're doing anything here is lack of a 2nd implementation, then we might already be good. That said, I don't know what the test suite status is etc, so I'm totally fine with punting Shared Workers for now. However I'd really like to see us start a level 2 of the spec. The synchronous messaging channels is something else I'd like to see done there. / Jonas On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: During TPAC 2013 in Shenzhen, I took an action item [1][2] to remove Shared Workers from the W3C Web Workers spec [3] in order for the spec to pass the first of the two stated CR exit criteria in the spec itself. It is my intention to start this work soon. My question for the group—should I transplant the Shared Worker spec prose into a separate REC-track editor’s document, or simply remove it outright? (Removing it would be easier of course :0) [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/709 [2] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20131112#l-661 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-workers-20120501/ Alexandre Morgaut Wakanda Community Manager 4D SAS 60, rue d'Alsace 92110 Clichy France Standard : +33 1 40 87 92 00 Email :alexandre.morg...@4d.com Web : www.4D.com
