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.
Issue 403693 Implement ServiceWorkerMessageEvent and ExtendableMessageEvent
Starred by 3 users Project Member Reported by kenjibaheux@chromium.org, Aug 14 2014 Back to list
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
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