- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:30:32 -0700
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com>wrote: >> >>> There are additional constraints that haven't been mentioned yet... >>> Plugins. >>> >>> The current model for plugins is that they execute in a single-threaded >>> world. Chrome maintains that model by hosting each plugin in its own process >>> and RPC'ing method invocations back and forth between calling pages and the >>> plugin instances. All plugin instances (of a given plugin) reside on the >>> same thread. >>> >> >> Why can't instances of a plugin in different browser contexts be hosted in >> separate processes? > > > It would be expensive, and i think has this would have some correctness > issues too depending on the plugin. Some plugins depend on instances knowing > about each other and interoperating with each other out of band of DOM based > means doing so. > And others probably assume they have exclusive access to mutable plugin resources on disk. > > >> >> >> Rob >> -- >> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; >> the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are >> healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his >> own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah >> 53:5-6] >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090406/436704ef/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 19:30:32 UTC