4 ms·
It really works beautifully. One of our applications coming up needs to work offline, and we found that because of the naming we were using, appcache was almost
by Klathmon 11y ago
It really works beautifully. One of our applications coming up needs to work offline, and we found that because of the naming we were using, appcache was almost completely work-free to implement.
If the appcache.manifest changes, it rechecks all files (or in my case, would only pointpessly re-check those which haven't changed, and download new ones), and the appcache.manifest will change the second a single byte anywhere in the program changes.
It's fantastic.
- Syrup-tan 11y agoIt's notable that appcache is now deprecated [0] It's been replaced by Service Workers, but those can get reallly hard to deal with if they start caching themselves (!) Chrome's devtools has ways to delete old service workers and such, but I've found that on Firefox it's next to impossible to debug. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Using_the_application_cache https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Using_the_...
- stqism 11y agoIt's also notable that service worker adoption is only half way at best, whereas appcache is easier to deploy and supported in far more browsers. Not to say service workers aren't the future, but implementing partially adopted features in web pages is poor practice. http://caniuse.com/#feat=serviceworkers http://caniuse.com/#feat=serviceworkers
- Klathmon 11y agoWe are aware and are ready to switch to a service-worker and appcache hybrid when that time comes that appcache is going to be removed. But until then we wanted to keep it simple. Especially during development we don't want to have to deal with differences in SW and appcache.