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 12 users

Issue metadata

Status: Assigned
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 3
Type: Task

Sign in to add a comment

Issue 582750: Remove AppCache

Reported by, Jan 30 2016

Issue description

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/48.0.2564.97 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce the problem:
AppCache is deprecated and removed from spec and instead recommended to use Service Workers.

What is the expected behavior?

What went wrong?
> This feature is in the process of being removed from the Web platform. (This is a long process that takes many years.) Using any of the offline Web application features at this time is highly discouraged. Use service workers instead.

Did this work before? N/A 

Chrome version: 48.0.2564.97  Channel: stable
OS Version: 10.0
Flash Version: Shockwave Flash 20.0 r0

Firefox 44 shows deprecation warning and son will remove its support completely,

Comment 1 by, Feb 1 2016

Labels: -Type-Bug Type-Feature Cr-Blink
Status: Untriaged
Looks like a feature request, Untriaging it so that it gets addressed.

Comment 2 by, Feb 3 2016

Labels: -Cr-Blink Cr-Blink-Storage-AppCache

Comment 3 by, Mar 15 2016

+Joel who removed appcache from insecure origins. @Joel, is there a timeline for removing AppCache on secure origins?

Comment 4 by, Mar 15 2016

Not that I know of, but I'd happy to see it happen :-) Adding slightlyoff@ and jakearchibald@ who can hopefully give me a security reason to intent to remove it (or just declare that it's a good idea to do so).

It's much, much too early to really tell with these stats (they were only added a few weeks ago), but the good news is that the usage stats I added for AppCache look very low on secure origins:

Comment 5 by, Mar 16 2016

Labels: -OS-Windows -Pri-2 Pri-3
Status: Available (was: Untriaged)

Comment 6 by, Apr 7 2016

Given Safari doesn't even support Service Workers yet, is there a markup approach way to disable AppCache when both Service Workers and AppCache are available?

Comment 7 by, Apr 7 2016

Appcache is ignored for urls that are within scope of a service worker.

Comment 8 by, Apr 9 2016

> Adding slightlyoff@ and jakearchibald@ who can hopefully give me a security reason to intent to remove it (or just declare that it's a good idea to do so).

@jaffathecake's security reason for removal:

also, for those effected & looking for a quick fix, Kenneth Rhode Christensen has a service worker for polyfilling app cache.

Comment 9 by, Feb 23 2017

Labels: -Type-Feature Type-Task

Comment 10 by, Apr 17 2018

Project Member
Labels: Hotlist-Recharge-Cold
Status: Untriaged (was: Available)
This issue has been Available for over a year. If it's no longer important or seems unlikely to be fixed, please consider closing it out. If it is important, please re-triage the issue.

Sorry for the inconvenience if the bug really should have been left as Available.

For more details visit - Your friendly Sheriffbot

Comment 11 by, Apr 17 2018

@sheriffbot, this needs to be solved since isn't anymore a part of the spec, AppCache is depreciated.

Comment 12 by, May 1 2018

Labels: -Hotlist-Recharge-Cold
Status: Available (was: Untriaged)
Status: waiting on big customers to finish migrating to Service Workers. Can maybe start putting a roadmap together to warn developers away.

Comment 13 by, Aug 24

Status: Assigned (was: Available)

Comment 14 by, Oct 4

I noticed in Chrome 71 the AppCache size is now limited to 5MB per app, is this part of the roadmap to remove it?
I need to know how fast we have to work to replace it in our apps.

I write this here because I don't know if this is a bug or intended change.


Comment 15 by, Oct 4

#14:  Changing AppCache behavior is not intentional. I've been trying to clean up the code to reason about some bugs, so any quota change is an accident.

Please file a new bug and e-mail it to me (pwnall@chromium) or mention it here, so I can see it. I'm particularly interested if you have a repro that demonstrates we're providing different quota on 69 / 70 / 71. Thank you!

Sign in to add a comment