Comment 20 for bug 1706107

Dan,

I'm sorry I couldn't make it to your presentation, but I'm glad you had a positive response.

Since, as you intimated and I understand it to be true, Workbox could be used as a drop-in replacement for UpUp (after the attendant boilerplate and infrastructure addition, and whatever learning curve is involved), I suggest we proceed with my existing, pullrequested branch, and when you (or anyone with the time to dig through your presentation) have an enhancement for My Account ready to offer, that code can and should take over caching duties from UpUp.

IOW, please do feel free to rip UpUp out, root and branch, when you have something that can replace it ready for offer. If that's tomorrow (or any time before before Galen calls a halt), great! In fact, even if it's just a replacement for UpUp in offline context, I'll welcome it.

As for "reimplementing" (replacing) the service worker in 3.1, if I take your meaning, that's my loss, not yours, and I consider it a loss of three effective lines of code which you can effectively pretend are simply not there. I realize that I'm not giving you the infrastructure to build your My Account work on for free, but I simply didn't have the time to invest. So, really, I can't see how it's a big loss or impediment to either of us. I won't consider replacing UpUp a shame, I'll consider it progress. UpUp got me to working offline code in the time available for inclusion in 3.0, which was my goal. If something better supersedes it in the future (or immediately), that'll be great.

If you need my assistance getting offline caching into a new, more comprehensive framework, you'll have it. I suspect, though, that making sure a list of assets are available is something you'll already be working on, so adding a few files to the list probably won't be overly burdensome.

Also, thank you for your early push toward service workers for offline. It was very helpful!