Intent to Ship: ServiceWorker static routing API

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa]

Contact emails

yyana...@chromium.org, sisid...@chromium.org

Explainer

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api

Specification

https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1701

Summary

This API allows developers to configure the routing, and allows them to offload simple things ServiceWorkers do.  If the condition matches, the navigation happens without starting ServiceWorkers or executing JavaScript, which allows web pages to avoid performance penalties due to ServiceWorker interceptions.

Blink component

Blink>ServiceWorker

TAG review

https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/863

TAG review status

Issues addressed

Chromium Trial Name

ServiceWorkerStaticRouter

Link to origin trial feedback summary

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mE3tngHQdz0s66Z_iIGksFxQui3taogP8pDafLUHMEg/edit#heading=h.ia9i7k1ocjnq

Origin Trial documentation link

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api?tab=readme-ov-file#origin-trial

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

Gecko: Positive (https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/828)

WebKit: No signal (https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/206) Informal positive signals at TPAC, but no official standards position.

Web developers: Positive (https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1373) We see many positive signals and feedback from developers on the Github issue and other places (e.g. https://jakearchibald.com/2019/service-worker-declarative-router/#disqus_thread). Also, we have partners who participated in the OT (feedback).

Other signals:

WebView application risks

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?

Authors don’t foresee any obvious issue with WebView. WebView supports ServiceWorkers, and any existing applications would not be affected unless they opt-in to the static routing API explicitly. 

Debuggability

The registered router rules are visible via chrome://serviceworker-internals and the DevTools application panel.  The matched rule can be seen in the size field of the DevTools network panel.

Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?

Yes

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?

Yes

https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers/service-worker/tentative/static-router?label=master&label=experimental&aligned

https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/service-workers/service-worker/tentative/static-router/?q=service-workers%2Fservice-worker%2Ftentative%2Fstatic-router

Flag name on chrome://flags

#service-worker-static-router

Finch feature name

ServiceWorkerStaticRouter

Requires code in //chrome?

False

Tracking bug

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1371756

Launch bug

https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4261120

Measurement

The number of partners who started to use the API in their production. UKM's LCP and the partner's business metrics. UseCounter: ServiceWorkerStaticRouter_AddRoutes and ServiceWorkerStaticRouter_Evaluate

Availability expectation

Feature will eventually be available on Web Platform mainline. The URLPattern became the standard, and currently no concerns exist.

Adoption expectation

Feature is considered as a best practice to mitigate the ServiceWorker performance issue on its cold start. Several internal/external partners have already started trying the feature during the OT, and some of them see performance improvement. They are expected to use the feature within 12 months of launch in Chrome.

Adoption plan

We have already started the incubation process with several partners. We intend to move them forward to help them launch. By using the results as case studies, we intend to expand usage by helping libraries support the API.

Non-OSS dependencies

Does the feature depend on any code or APIs outside the Chromium open source repository and its open-source dependencies to function?

n/a

Estimated milestones

Shipping on desktop	123
OriginTrial desktop last	121
OriginTrial desktop first	116

Shipping on Android	123
OriginTrial Android last	121
OriginTrial Android first	116

OriginTrial webView last	121
OriginTrial webView first	116

Anticipated spec changes

Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of the API in a non-backward-compatible way).

Limit the size of rules.

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api/issues/5

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api/issues/6

If the limit is large enough to cover the relevant usages, it should not be a source of issues.

Timing Info

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api/issues/19

The timing info for the API will be decided in a backward-compatible way.  It should not be a source of issues.

Making subsequent subresource request uses the navigation request’s source

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api/issues/7

This can be implemented as another condition, and should not break backward compatibility.

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api/blob/main/final-form.md

tells conditions and sources that can be added in the future.  The time condition and conditional syntaxes are not implemented yet.  Also, some sources are considered to have fields.  However, they should come as new conditions / sources, it should not break backward compatibility.

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status

https://chromestatus.com/feature/5185352976826368

Links to previous Intent discussions

Intent to prototype: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/fyvsde2ay2A/m/RH9E8hB0AgAJ Intent to Experiment: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGMyg-abNsH2mfBw3%2BiaJgMn3SKCEzBzw0FuMudbmQ9XhkjEVg%40mail.gmail.com

Intent to Extend Experiment: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/gTy-fpBOXDM

Intent to Ship: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/gTy-fpBOXDM

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status.

[Vladimir Levin]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024, 22:56 Yoshisato Yanagisawa <yyana...@chromium.org> wrote:

Contact emails

yyana...@chromium.org, sisid...@chromium.org

Explainer

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api

Specification

https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1701

Summary

This API allows developers to configure the routing, and allows them to offload simple things ServiceWorkers do.  If the condition matches, the navigation happens without starting ServiceWorkers or executing JavaScript, which allows web pages to avoid performance penalties due to ServiceWorker interceptions.

Blink component

Blink>ServiceWorker

TAG review

https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/863

TAG review status

Issues addressed

Chromium Trial Name

ServiceWorkerStaticRouter

Link to origin trial feedback summary

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mE3tngHQdz0s66Z_iIGksFxQui3taogP8pDafLUHMEg/edit#heading=h.ia9i7k1ocjnq

I just want to say that it's heartening to see OT feedback being taken seriously and addressed in rigorous manner.

Origin Trial documentation link

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api?tab=readme-ov-file#origin-trial

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

Gecko: Positive (https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/828)

WebKit: No signal (https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/206) Informal positive signals at TPAC, but no official standards position.

It seems like the only concerns with this proposal (in TAG and elsewhere) was the status of URLPattern in the spec, but that has been since resolved. Is this your understanding as well?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAPNB-6WZdPweNTAvcG4k3kuB9EzV2AbGVme4Byxzg%2BRKganb2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa]

2024年2月9日(金) 13:20 Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org>:

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024, 22:56 Yoshisato Yanagisawa <yyana...@chromium.org> wrote:

Contact emails

yyana...@chromium.org, sisid...@chromium.org

Explainer

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api

Specification

https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1701

Summary

This API allows developers to configure the routing, and allows them to offload simple things ServiceWorkers do.  If the condition matches, the navigation happens without starting ServiceWorkers or executing JavaScript, which allows web pages to avoid performance penalties due to ServiceWorker interceptions.

Blink component

Blink>ServiceWorker

TAG review

https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/863

TAG review status

Issues addressed

Chromium Trial Name

ServiceWorkerStaticRouter

Link to origin trial feedback summary

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mE3tngHQdz0s66Z_iIGksFxQui3taogP8pDafLUHMEg/edit#heading=h.ia9i7k1ocjnq

I just want to say that it's heartening to see OT feedback being taken seriously and addressed in rigorous manner.

Thank you.

 

Origin Trial documentation link

https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api?tab=readme-ov-file#origin-trial

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

Gecko: Positive (https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/828)

WebKit: No signal (https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/206) Informal positive signals at TPAC, but no official standards position.

It seems like the only concerns with this proposal (in TAG and elsewhere) was the status of URLPattern in the spec, but that has been since resolved. Is this your understanding as well?

Yes.  I think we are on the same page.

As I have left a comment in the WebKit link, URLPattern has already become the standard, and is actively maintained.

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa]

Do you have any other questions? concerns? comments?

There were many Intent to Ship/Experiment emails at the same time, and I am afraid this mail thread was overlooked.

2024年2月9日(金) 14:20 Yoshisato Yanagisawa <yyana...@chromium.org>:

[Domenic Denicola]

At the moment it appears the spec is not complete, as a possibly-large chunk of behavior (regarding request/response reuse that modifies the behavior of fetch() inside service worker fetch handlers) needs to have its spec written: https://github.com/yoshisatoyanagisawa/ServiceWorker/pull/10/files#r1483835014

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAPNB-6XPVmcMvKV1_wmjG9%2B6sTZ8RabDOJK6dPk7xR20TmvrXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chris Harrelson]

I see the main spec PR has landed and a small related Fetch PR is done. Thanks all for doing that!

LGTM1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra-BV90qWJ%2BGwnh9AJzpBhLd8dnqBFCivsUOuAr1-8nmUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Domenic Denicola]

LGTM2

[Mike Taylor]

LGTM3

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra9BfOiwVZy8wnp81M0EWyutkZ%3D%3D-VX3Zeq%2BN8KRMxVVPQ%40mail.gmail.com.