tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post47720464163011113..comments2009-09-03T09:51:16.163-07:00Malte Ublhttps://profiles.google.com/116910304844117268718noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post-62704436516537592812009-09-03T09:51:16.163-07:002009-09-03T09:51:16.163-07:00As acknowedleg by Google this was an oversight in the last Chrome release that won&#39;t be fixed until 3.0<br /><br />I don&#39;t really have a problem with the message. It was just unfortunate that the stub was left in at all.Maltehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948805318873322781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post-34267661146603106462009-09-03T07:29:32.925-07:002009-09-03T07:29:32.925-07:00actually, there is a trick able to understand if the Worker is Buggy or not.<br /><br /><i>if(!Worker || Worker.prototype.constructor === Worker){<br /> // ... gears fallback ...<br />}</i><br /><br />also I do not get why you do not like the e.message property ... but this is another story.<br /><br />RegardsAndrea Giammarchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16277820774810688474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post-55960769620519043312009-07-23T10:34:59.871-07:002009-07-23T10:34:59.871-07:00OK, bug filed<br />http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=17558Maltehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948805318873322781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post-74108774878801484992009-07-23T10:08:22.488-07:002009-07-23T10:08:22.488-07:00@Masklinn: Indeed one could only use the try block, but we really want to remove that clutch eventually.<br /><br />@Alex: This is the current windows release version. Nothing fancy. I&#39;m happy to file a bug if this is not known.Maltehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948805318873322781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post-46717912583175235182009-07-23T09:51:10.435-07:002009-07-23T09:51:10.435-07:00Some questions:<br /><br /> * What channel does this bug occur on? Dev? Beta? Stable?<br /> * Is it logged as a bug at crbug.com? If not, would you please file it?<br /> * Are you running with non-default command-line switches (e.g., --enable-workers)?<br /><br />ThanksAlex Russellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11981572061141304573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post-38628818569853958702009-07-23T06:47:24.693-07:002009-07-23T06:47:24.693-07:00@OP<br />If the test is done only once, why not remove the initial test and just go for the try/catch based one? It should work all the time nay?<br /><br />@robertc<br />Worker is a JS API, WebKit is a layout engine (so HTML + CSS). Safari and Chrome have completely different JS engines (resp. Nitro, formerly known as Squirrelfish Extreme, and V8) so the JS part, including Worker I&#39;d guess, would be independent.<br /><br />Furthermore, it doesn&#39;t make sense for Chrome to include a completely broken Worker that merely has the advertisement part wrong, that wastes everybody&#39;s time.<br /><br />Finally, while IE does Chrome doesn&#39;t have the mindshare to play that kind of tricks.Masklinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10261896483118253882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5274051535398117366.post-59947096885047910432009-07-23T03:51:05.039-07:002009-07-23T03:51:05.039-07:00Is it because Worker is in Webkit, but they want to use Gears instead and they&#39;ve done an incomplete job of commenting it out?robertchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04536310092574943046noreply@blogger.com