RFC 98: Remote channels for cross-browsing-group communication

[jgraham]

Rendered Implementation

[jgraham]

Gentle ping here. This has been open for a week, so per the process I could go ahead and merge it, but I'm pretty sure you don't want me to do that ;)

[hiroshige-g]

Commented somehow verbosely to move discussion forward.

As for executeScript(), the RFC basically looks similar to what the current RemoteContext.execute_script() and bfcache tests do, while there are more primitives around navigations (executeScriptNoResult, pause and closeAllChannelSockets in this RFC while the bfcache tests only have closeAllChannelSockets-equivalent, as commented inline above) and I'd like to understand the differences (IIUC there aren't fundamental differences, because I expect switching the impl from Fetch API to websocket doesn't impact so much). So in terms of executeScript(), this RFC looks like switching from Fetch API to websocket based implementation (compared to the previous RFCs and https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/28950), both pure JavaScript-based, and thus doesn't cause test bodies except for mechanical changes (correct?).

The RFC is more about replacing the existing send() and receive() primitives currently used in COEP/COOP tests, by introducing related API classses, adding more APIs in addition to send()/receive() etc., and I expect test writers (other than me) and WPT infra people might have more interests on these.

cc/ @ArthurSonzogni and @foolip.

[jgraham]

@hiroshige-g Thanks for the detailed comments, it's much appreciated! I've responded to the technical concerns, hopefully in a way that also provides context for other reviewers. I'll update the RFC for the more editorial issues. Please let me know if I miss[ed] anything.

[foolip]

Ping @web-platform-tests/wpt-core-team for review on this. I'll be taking a look tomorrow (I am a liar) but more review is better!

[jgraham]

Ping, again. This has now gone another week since the last round of updates without further review.