Project: chromium Issues People Development process History Sign in
New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.
Starred by 3 users
Status: Duplicate
Merged: issue 498596
Owner:
User never visited
Closed: Jun 2015
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: All
Pri: 3
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment
Implement ServiceWorkerMessageEvent and ExtendableMessageEvent
Project Member Reported by kenjibaheux@chromium.org, Aug 14 2014 Back to list
event.source is currently null 
Per the spec, event.source should be set to the

"The event.source of these MessageEvents are instances of ServiceWorkerClient relevant instance of  ServiceWorkerClient"
 
Comment 1 by dominicc@google.com, Aug 27 2014
Status: Available
Comment 2 by jsb...@chromium.org, Sep 23 2014
Owner: xiang.l...@intel.com
Status: Started
Labels: -Pri-2 Pri-3 M-40
Related issue: https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/453
Given the perceived uncertainty, it's probably not a bad outcome that this is currently useless:
 - it might change => fixing may increase compatibility risk 
 - I don't think this brings any value for the use cases we can address in M40
Comment 5 by falken@chromium.org, Nov 10 2014
Labels: -M-40 M-41
Xiang has patches up that need review.
Comment 6 by falken@chromium.org, Nov 13 2014
I intended to review then saw the github issue https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/453. Does the spec issue block implementation? Is it likely the spec will change so that .source is not the SWClient?
Comment 7 by falken@chromium.org, Nov 14 2014
Discussion on https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/453 suggests it might be correct to keep .source as null.
Labels: Release-notes
We called this in our M40 release notes, so if we end up changing something we should also call that out => adding Release-notes label
Comment 9 by falken@chromium.org, Jan 13 2015
Labels: -M-41 M-42
Cc: mvanouwe...@chromium.org
Hmm, I'm wondering if this old issue has any impact for Fizz-Push use cases. Asked on the spec issue if the introduction of WindowClient results in any actionable item.
Labels: -M-42 M-43 MovedFrom-42
[AUTO] Moving all non essential bugs to the next Milestone.  (This decision is based on the labels attached to your ticket.)


Ref: https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/ticket-milestone-punting-1
Need to double check against this issue as well: https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/652 (seemed relevant)
Labels: -M-43 MovedFrom-43
[AUTO] This issue has already been moved once and is lower than Priority 1,therefore removing mstone.
Status: Assigned
The spec's been updated as per https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/453#issuecomment-78219109

Xiang, are you still interested in taking this? Feel free to unassign if not.
Labels: M-47
I can continue my previous work. However not sure whether the interface is settled or not.
Seems there's still discussion on: https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/669.
Mergedinto: 498596
Status: Duplicate
Summary: Implement ServiceWorkerMessageEvent and ExtendableMessageEvent (was: MessageEvent: event.source should be set to the relevant instance of ServiceWorkerClient)
Transfering to OWP bug as requested on Intent to Ship:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/fUPpDcnOi64
Sign in to add a comment