Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Service Workers

frontendian.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Service Workers

#61

Post by michaelmrose »

Brakenshire wrote: post #21
michaelmrose wrote: post #4

"Imagine being able to respond to push notifications, intercept resource requests, and schedule background syncronization, all without the need for a user to actively have your website open in front of them." ".. by authoring special-purpose JavaScript which you register with the browser." Why does this seem like something useful for malware and generally annoying me.

Push requests only exists on Chrome and is behind a permission, intercepting resource requests within the domain of a website could cause some annoyances, can’t see the malware effect immediately. Scheduling a download for a stable connection, again, could be an annoyance, but what’s the malware implication?

People are bad at managing permissions. Making people's security depend on responding reasonably to a dialog box nearly always ends in tears.

If I popped up a dialog box asking to harvest a kidney 30% of users would click yes.

Re: Service Workers

#62

Post by ForHackernews »

untog wrote: post #56
ForHackernews wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wanted their "messaging application" to run in a web browser before Google. AIM, ICQ, IRC, and Yahoo Messenger all used local clients.

No actual user cares how their messaging application is made. If it's a progressive webapp or a native app, and the actual experience can be the same, then it really doesn't matter. > AIM, ICQ, IRC, and Yahoo Messenger all used local clients. A webapp with a service worker is a local client. And a lot of people use Whatsapp Web, or Facebook Messenger's web site. I know I do.

I think users do care. I care that I can't close my browser without missing messages. I dislike that Electron apps use half my RAM.

If by "don't care" you mean "don't care enough to abandon a platform their friends are on" then I guess I agree. But all you've proven is that network effects matter.

Re: Service Workers

#63

Post by johncolanduoni »

michaelmrose wrote: post #60
johncolanduoni wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Service workers automatically reload after 24 hours, regardless of caching headers (though I believe they’ll respect a 304). I believe this was done partially to limit the duration of such a compromise.

I don't want to be compromised at all and it seems like a great way keep it that way is to force web pages to live in you know pages which I can close and know they aren't effecting my browser. It also breaks my mental model of how the browser works in a way that will be incomprehensible to users. Instead of my computer is acting funny I need to reboot we will have my browser is acting funny I need to restart it or w…

Unless there’s a sandbox escape, the worst it could do is use some extra CPU cycles and RAM. It’s not good at doing stuff like bitcoin mining because it’s event driven (much more like a page than a web worker). All the browsers are also very aggressive at killing them unless a page is open or you get a push notification.

Re: Service Workers

#64

Post by nerdponx »

dannyw wrote: post #5

I like service workers, but I don't like the lack of control I have. For example, I want Messenger to send me notifications if I have the tab open, but I don't want the service worker to maintain a persistent connection and send me notifications with the tab closed. Unfortunately, I am not able to block service workers. My only option is to block notifications entirely, which doesn't even stop the service worker.

How much would I have to donate to Mozilla in order to get them to develop a service worker management UI in Firefox?

Re: Service Workers

#65

Post by paulie_a »

pmlnr wrote: post #50
paulie_a wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone that has that amount of mail go out of their way to get a phone with such limited capacity. At this point a phone with 16gb serves the purpose of being a burner phone.

You are not living in the real world. There is no limit on gmail. For someone who has it for a decade or more, 20GB mail is realistic, since gmail always told you there is no need to delete anything, ever. As for 16GB phones, those are pretty normal; take a look at moto e5. Please don't tell me a 64GB phone is required for email. It also doesn't change the initial problem of what and how much should be cached by serv…

A 128 gb card currently costs fifty bucks

And depending on your needs yes 64gbs for mail might be very necessary.

Re: Service Workers

#66

Post by karolg »

nerdponx wrote: post #64
dannyw wrote: post #5

I like service workers, but I don't like the lack of control I have. For example, I want Messenger to send me notifications if I have the tab open, but I don't want the service worker to maintain a persistent connection and send me notifications with the tab closed. Unfortunately, I am not able to block service workers. My only option is to block notifications entirely, which doesn't even stop the service worker.

How much would I have to donate to Mozilla in order to get them to develop a service worker management UI in Firefox?

Actually, Firefox has UI for this. Click "Menu -> Web Developer -> Service Workers". This will open a special page "about:debugging#workers". It shows active service workers and allows you to unregister them. There is another even simpler UI at "about:serviceworkers".

Re: Service Workers

#67

Post by nerdponx »

karolg wrote: post #66
nerdponx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much would I have to donate to Mozilla in order to get them to develop a service worker management UI in Firefox?

Actually, Firefox has UI for this. Click "Menu -> Web Developer -> Service Workers". This will open a special page "about:debugging#workers". It shows active service workers and allows you to unregister them. There is another even simpler UI at "about:serviceworkers".

Interesting, thank you. Why isn't this functionality accessible through the regular settings UI?

Re: Service Workers

#68

Post by tobylane »

wakeywakeywakey wrote: post #16
htor wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consumers demand rich apps and interactivity, and it appears they're having it their way. no consumer ever demanded the web to be like an app. this is marketing baloney crap. stop treating humans browsing the web as targets for advertisement and consumerism.

You are conflating what you wish were true with reality. For-profit companies typically build toward what they believe is in-demand and will be well-received by consumers. They perform market analysis to reinforce their intuition. Sometimes they get it right and their stock goes up. There isn't some elaborate plot on the part of Google, nor are 'they' purposely making something 'no consumer ever demanded.' When they…

Google and Facebook want us on their website but we aren't their customers. The people paying their bills want our web experience mildly but tolerably bloated and tracked. You have a good point but Google and Facebook are the last people to use for proof.
Post reply on HN