web worker's baseUrl

[fmate14]

* What is the problem you are trying to solve?
The worker's base URL is it's path:

Code: Select all

index.html
scripts
   \-- worker.js
modules
   \-- myModule.js


If my module can work with or without worker, I must use

Code: Select all

<script src="modules/myModule.js" />

in html, but

Code: Select all

importScripts('../modules/myModule.js')

in worker.

It will be good to import scripts relative to the main document, not the worker. Like in PHP's require() or import().

* What is the feature you are suggesting to help solve it?

Code: Select all

var worker = new Worker('scriptFile.js', 'baseURL');

or

Code: Select all

var worker = new Worker('scriptFile.js',{baseUrl:'baseUrl'});

* What is the processing model for that feature, including error handling?
It doesn't change.

* Why do you think browsers would implement this feature?
It is easy to implement.

* Why do you think authors would use this feature?
It is more intuitive, than the current solution.

* What evidence is there that this feature is desparately needed?
There is no evidence. I am not sure, that this is a good idea. What do you think?

I have created a framework, which must load itself first. But if it is no beside the html nor the other scripts, the developer don't know, how can he import scripts with relative url, so I must convert every url to absolute url.

Sorry my english.

[zcorpan]

I think the reason for this is that a worker can be shared between several documents.

You could work around this by doing something like:

Code: Select all

var worker = new Worker('scripts/worker.js#../');

Code: Select all

var base = location.hash.substr(1);
importScripts(base + 'modules/myModule.js');

[zcorpan]

Also URLs can be relative against the root by using '/' as the first character, as in:

Code: Select all

importScripts('/foo/bar/modules/myModules.js');

[wihitmult]

Yes URL can be use using the “/â€