- From: Darin Fisher <darin@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:00:12 -0700
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:57 PM, timeless <timeless at gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW, iirc multiple processes from IE dates to at least IE4 > > The best url I can find on the subject atm is > <http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/bit092098.html>. > > 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. > > Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote: > > Why can't instances of a plugin in different browser contexts be hosted > > in separate processes? > > Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com> wrote: > > And others probably assume they have exclusive access to mutable plugin > > resources on disk. > > This seems unlikely. I can run Firefox, Safari, Chrome, IE, Opera, and > others browsers at the same time, heck I can run multiple profiles of > a couple of these (I can't find the option in the current version of > Chrome, but I used it before). > chrome.exe --user-data-dir=c:\foo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090407/106207ed/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 00:00:12 UTC