Do API restrictions on Service Worker still exist in Manifest v3 extensions?

89 views
Skip to first unread message

BlackGlory

unread,
Jan 12, 2021, 2:32:21 AMJan 12
to Chromium Extensions
AFAIK, Service Worker lacks `Web Worker` and `URL.createObjectURL`.

I tried MV3 in Chrome Beta 88 and found that these APIs do not exist, is it possible that these APIs will be added in the future?

wOxxOm

unread,
Jan 12, 2021, 9:31:07 AMJan 12
to Chromium Extensions, woshenmed...@blackglory.me
These restrictions are a part of the web specification that defines service worker technology. The web doesn't urgently need these two features you mentioned so it's quite likely to take another year or even 5-10 years to resolve the blockers before the features are added to the specification.

Meanwhile it would make sense for you to add two separate feature requests on https://crbug.com as there's a slim chance that Chromium developers may implement them just for the extensions' service workers somehow.

P.S. I doubt it though because the reason the team switched to service workers was to avoid having a custom solution (background pages). Overall, judging by the fact that current ManifestV3 implementation almost exactly matches the planned initial draft and it took them more than a year to implement, extension authors will experience a severe downgrade feature-wise with no sensible workarounds once ManifestV2 support is removed which will likely happen long time before ManifestV3 implements the missing features.

Kos

unread,
Jan 12, 2021, 9:38:21 AMJan 12
to Chromium Extensions, wOxxOm, woshenmed...@blackglory.me
Google doesn't care about standarts, it's our new IE, if you know what I mean. They created V3 themselves without any Safari/Firefox spec syncs, and they don't even released final versoin of it. 

What they will add/remove in the future is up to Google and that's it, you can't port extensions any more to other browsers. It's moving IE way, man.

wOxxOm

unread,
Jan 12, 2021, 9:43:06 AMJan 12
to Chromium Extensions, Kos, wOxxOm, woshenmed...@blackglory.me
No, in this case it's the opposite: "Google" - or rather Chromium - cares about web standards too much and uses an inferior web technology in place of the much more powerful custom solution.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages