Reputation: 3611
I read that using a service worker for offline caching is similar to browser caching. If so, then why would you prefer a service worker for this caching? Browser caching will check if the file is modified or not and then serve from the cache, and with a service worker we are handling the same thing from our code. By default, the browser has that feature so why prefer a service worker?
Upvotes: 79
Views: 14651
Reputation: 20458
Service Workers give you complete control over network requests. You can return anything you want for the fetch event, it does not need to be the past or current contents of that particular file.
However, if the HTTP cache handles your needs, you are under no obligation to use Service Workers.
They are also used for things such as push notifications.
Documentation: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API, https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API/Using_Service_Workers
Upvotes: 27
Reputation: 143
Actually, it's slower to response the request when you use sw instead of http cache... Because sw use cache api to store the cache content, it's really slower than the browser cache--memory cache and disk cache.
It's not designed for faster than http cache, howerver, when you use sw, you can Fully customizable the response, I think the Fully customizable is the reason why you should use it.
If your situation is not complicated enough, you should not use it
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 3611
I wanted to share the points that I observed while going through service worker documentation and implemented it.
Upvotes: 12