[Bug 26957] Allow sending DOM objects to Workers and expose a DOM (or DOM-like) interface to workers

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26957

--- Comment #9 from brunoais <brunoaiss@gmail.com> ---
Yes. It doesn't need to be the whole API. The more the better but if there are
technical issues related to shared memory, I cannot know how much it can be
done.

I wonder if it is the rendering engine that processes the DOM or if there's a
layer that does that work and the rendering engine just takes the internal DOM
representation and then translate it to a visual representation of that
content.

If it is the latter, then it is definitely not required for what I mention in
this bug.

Large subset of the DOM API (outside what is already specified to be
implemented inside the workers) is inside what I ask but lots of it is not
required.

E.g:
- LocalStorage -> Not required.
- IndexedDB -> Not required (although if implemented it would be quite
awesome).
- Mutation observers -> Not required (completely useless in a worker also)
- Events (and all related, including addEventListener) -> Not required
(completely useless)
- Deprecated DOM interfaces (such as the document.all and related) -> Not
required.
- Most window's methods and properties such as:
-- window.name -> Makes no sense
-- window.postMessage (use the main thread instead)
- Many of Document's methods and properties -> Not really useful. Such as:
-- document.getSelection() (and others related to selections) -> Makes no
sense.
-- document.hasFocus (use the main thread instead)
-- document.open + document.close (use the main thread instead)

- Any way to communicate or send information to other threads outside the
already defined events system for communication with thread that started the
worker's execution.



DOM searching, however, would be a great addition. Such as:
.querySelector() + .querySelectorAll()
.getElement(s)By*()
.matches()
.children
NodeList
document.createElement()
.classList
.style (only changes the HTML. Has no action in the interface)
.setAttribute() + .getAttribute()
etc...


Does it look like more realistic that way? Is there a need to remove more DOM
functionality or am I removing all that (probably) uses shared memory?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 22:06:23 UTC