Workers v2 (Was: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec)

2013-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
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)

2013-12-11 Thread pira...@gmail.com
  - 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


Re: Workers v2

2013-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, pira...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   - 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

It's in the what features are visible topic, unless there's anything 
specific about the API that needs changing in workers.

As far as the WebRTC stuff goes, though, I'll let the WebRTC group decide 
what should happen. The issue of being clearer about what features are 
visible in workers is mostly about getting some IDL-level keyword that we 
can use to make it easier to specify (right now it can be done but has to 
be done in prose, and I haven't been consistent about it in my specs).

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'



Re: Workers v2

2013-12-11 Thread pira...@gmail.com
Thanks for the clarification :-) It shouldn't be dificult, specially for
DataChannels: WebWorkers has already support for WebSockets and their API
is the same (and the security context fairly similar...). I agree on let
this discussion to the WebRTC group.

Send from my Samsung Galaxy Note II
El 11/12/2013 22:18, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch escribió:

 On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, pira...@gmail.com wrote:
  
- 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

 It's in the what features are visible topic, unless there's anything
 specific about the API that needs changing in workers.

 As far as the WebRTC stuff goes, though, I'll let the WebRTC group decide
 what should happen. The issue of being clearer about what features are
 visible in workers is mostly about getting some IDL-level keyword that we
 can use to make it easier to specify (right now it can be done but has to
 be done in prose, and I haven't been consistent about it in my specs).

 --
 Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
 http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
 Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'