Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #36969 > unrolled thread

Expected ratio of ServiceWorker instances to Geolocation Updates

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Expected ratio of ServiceWorker instances to Geolocation Updates Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-20 18:21 +0800
    Re: Expected ratio of ServiceWorker instances to Geolocation Updates Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-22 07:55 +0800

#36969 — Expected ratio of ServiceWorker instances to Geolocation Updates

For some time I've been arguing with W3C/IETF (and anyone else who'd 
engage) that ServiceWorkers are the ideal platform to host the 
Background Geolocation functionality that Ultimate Web Apps need in 
order to compete on a level playing field with Native Apps. The sticking 
point is usually the fleeting nature of a ServiceWorkers' lifespan. I 
have always argued that it would be madness to kill them immediately and 
most implementations seem to agree. (Firefox being the most aggressive 
at 30secs see Bug at 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1378587 this behaviour 
prevails even with heaps of CPU/Memory)

Anyway, in order to prove that I am right, and the likes of Jake 
Archibald are very much mistaken, I wrote a little Web App, Source code 
can be found here: 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Rmd3Rn8_hDNW1zSWRoXzBTclU (There is 
a aaa_readme.txt)

Now it still needs a bit of work to provide a trip summary page and map 
the trip on Google maps but I think you'll get the idea and most 
importantly see the real world, actual, demonstrable relationship 
between Service Worker Instances and Geolocation updates? (I wanted to 
get it out before the Europeans disappeared for August :-)

So have I done something stupid here? Am I imagining that I only get a 
new Service worker instance when I'm stuck at the lights for an extended 
period on the way home and position updates are nowhere to be seen? Are 
my coding skills lamentable and testing skills non-existent?

If not, then I have no idea why Web Apps are not allowed to satisfy 
these legitimate and very desirable user requirements. Sure, we'll get 
user-empowerment, permissions, and discovery right but let's get on with 
it? The TravelManagerPolyfill.js file is nearly all UA developers have 
to do!

Q: Have I understood the ServiceWorker architecture correctly and 
implemented a valid heuristic interrogation of ServiceWorker 
instantiation over time?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#36979

On 20-Jul-17 6:21 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> For some time I've been arguing with W3C/IETF (and anyone else who'd 
> engage) that ServiceWorkers are the ideal platform to host the 
> Background Geolocation functionality that Ultimate Web Apps need in 
> order to compete on a level playing field with Native Apps. The sticking 
> point is usually the fleeting nature of a ServiceWorkers' lifespan. I 
> have always argued that it would be madness to kill them immediately and 
> most implementations seem to agree. (Firefox being the most aggressive 
> at 30secs see Bug at 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1378587 this behaviour 
> prevails even with heaps of CPU/Memory)
> 
> Anyway, in order to prove that I am right, and the likes of Jake 
> Archibald are very much mistaken, I wrote a little Web App, Source code 
> can be found here: 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Rmd3Rn8_hDNW1zSWRoXzBTclU (There is 
> a aaa_readme.txt)
> 
> Now it still needs a bit of work to provide a trip summary page and map 
> the trip on Google maps but I think you'll get the idea and most 
> importantly see the real world, actual, demonstrable relationship 
> between Service Worker Instances and Geolocation updates? (I wanted to 
> get it out before the Europeans disappeared for August :-)
> 
> So have I done something stupid here? Am I imagining that I only get a 
> new Service worker instance when I'm stuck at the lights for an extended 
> period on the way home and position updates are nowhere to be seen? Are 
> my coding skills lamentable and testing skills non-existent?
> 
> If not, then I have no idea why Web Apps are not allowed to satisfy 
> these legitimate and very desirable user requirements. Sure, we'll get 
> user-empowerment, permissions, and discovery right but let's get on with 
> it? The TravelManagerPolyfill.js file is nearly all UA developers have 
> to do!
> 
> Q: Have I understood the ServiceWorker architecture correctly and 
> implemented a valid heuristic interrogation of ServiceWorker 
> instantiation over time?


For those wanting to know where the Java, VMS, and C# relevance is, you 
need to look at the Service Worker code echo.js, in particular: -

/*
  * Even if there are no active client windows we still let Starship
  * Control know where we are so thay can let us know (notify us) of a
  * GeoFence we've just traversed of a bargain to be had at that pub over
  * there.
  */
	function tellFleetManager(payLoad)
	{
		return new Promise((resolve, reject) =>
		{
		fetch(FLEET_MANAGER, {
			method: "POST",
			credentials: 'same-origin',
			headers: {
				'Content-Type': 'application/json'
			},
			body: payLoad
		}).then(response =>
			{
				if (response.ok) {
					resolve(response.json())
				} else {
					var error = new Error(response.statusText)
					error.response = response
					throw error;
				}
			}).catch(function(error) {
				console.log('Fleet request failed', error)
				reject(error);
				});
		})
	}	

This code allows the fleet management C#/Java server to track all 
trucks, pizzas, ski-buddies and plot them as a whole.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web