Re: [webkit-dev] Not able to play flash with windows webkit
Hi Adam, I raised the bug . It is reachable through link https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68789 Regards, Swapna On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Adam Roben aro...@apple.com wrote: On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:36 AM, vswap 65 wrote: After little more investigation I found that the issue is with the mimetype not with the flash plugin. When the NP flash plugini.e., npswf.dll is installed, webkit is loading the dll and playing the flash with if the mimetype is changed to application/x-shockwave-flash. This is valid mime-type for *.swf content. But in the testcase attached for the bugid: 21649, mimetype is application/octet-stream. And firefox is able to play even if the mimetype is application/octet-stream. So I wanted to know if this is a valid bug on webkit or its a content issue(invalid HTML content). Can some please suggest us if we can raise a bug on webkit? It sounds worth filing a bug and mentioning the difference from Firefox. It would also be good to test other browsers. -Adam ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Help with a possible Webkit bug
This isn't the right mailing list for a question like this. http://www.webkit.org/contact.html explains the different mailing lists. But probably the best thing to do in a case like this is to file a bug at http://webkit.org/new-bug. -Adam ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Vendor Prefixing, was Re: New feature announcement - Implement HTML5 Microdata in WebKit
FWIW, Opera is planning to ship this unprefixed. http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/microdata-and-the-microdata-dom-api/ ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Help with a possible Webkit bug UPDATE
This problem appears to be a duplicate of: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61452 I have annotated that bug report with a few additional comments. Thanks to David Brown for his help with this. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Help-with-a-possible-Webkit-bug-tp32503920p32503951.html Sent from the Webkit mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] pthreads and other threading primitives
In the wake of Geoff's work to simplify threading ifdefs, and Adam's review of supported ports, I'm curious what people think about maintaining many platform branches in our WTF and JavaScriptCore threading code. Right now, it feels rather non-systemic, with some code built upon pthreads, Qt or Gtk libraries, and some calling into Win32 API directly. Some specific examples: - JavaScriptCore/heap/MachineStackMarker.h only works with pthreads; - FastMalloc works with pthreads or Win32 API; - ThreadSpecific uses pthreads, Qt, Gtk, or Win32 API; - code in various ThreadingXXX.cpp and MainThreadXXX.cpp files is entirely custom. Chromium doesn't even use supposedly cross-platform parts in MainThread.cpp. Supporting multiple implementation has a high cost, both in the work directly applied to that, and in having subtle behavior differences. Checking svn blame for ThreadingQt.cpp and ThreadingGtk.cpp for example, I see that most lines are last touched by people who are not directly affiliated with these ports. I remember that performance was given as the primary reason to not use pthreads everywhere. What pthreads functionality in particular needs to be reimplemented in WTF for performance? And are there big reasons to use anything except for POSIX and Win32 APIs for us? Do we want to require that platforms support pthreads, so that code that isn't performance critical could have just one implementation? - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] pthreads and other threading primitives
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote: In the wake of Geoff's work to simplify threading ifdefs, and Adam's review of supported ports, I'm curious what people think about maintaining many platform branches in our WTF and JavaScriptCore threading code. Right now, it feels rather non-systemic, with some code built upon pthreads, Qt or Gtk libraries, and some calling into Win32 API directly. Some specific examples: - JavaScriptCore/heap/MachineStackMarker.h only works with pthreads; - FastMalloc works with pthreads or Win32 API; - ThreadSpecific uses pthreads, Qt, Gtk, or Win32 API; - code in various ThreadingXXX.cpp and MainThreadXXX.cpp files is entirely custom. Chromium doesn't even use supposedly cross-platform parts in MainThread.cpp. Supporting multiple implementation has a high cost, both in the work directly applied to that, and in having subtle behavior differences. Checking svn blame for ThreadingQt.cpp and ThreadingGtk.cpp for example, I see that most lines are last touched by people who are not directly affiliated with these ports. I remember that performance was given as the primary reason to not use pthreads everywhere. What pthreads functionality in particular needs to be reimplemented in WTF for performance? And are there big reasons to use anything except for POSIX and Win32 APIs for us? IMHO, I think JSC should go right to the metal rather than be abstracted with port specific threading classes. In other words, it should be broken out by platform threading libs - POSIX and Win32 - and not by port. After a very rudimentary scan, I saw no reason to not use straight Win32 and POSIX. This would arguably reduce port barrier-to-entry and maintenance, on top of the obvious code simplicity and slight performance increase. Do we want to require that platforms support pthreads, so that code that isn't performance critical could have just one implementation? That's the status quo :) MachineStackMarker only works with pthreads, so QtWin32 and Win ports need pthreads-win32 right now. pthreads is the least common denominator at the moment. Though there are performance reasons for getting away from that, there is also the fact that pthreads-win32 is an unmaintained project whose last update was 5 years ago. - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov Definitely worth a full reviewer analysis and vote I think. This is one of the many WebKit cleanup tasks to consider. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev -- *Sencha* Jarred Nicholls, Senior Software Architect @jarrednicholls http://twitter.com/jarrednicholls ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] pthreads and other threading primitives
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote: In the wake of Geoff's work to simplify threading ifdefs, and Adam's review of supported ports, I'm curious what people think about maintaining many platform branches in our WTF and JavaScriptCore threading code. Right now, it feels rather non-systemic, with some code built upon pthreads, Qt or Gtk libraries, and some calling into Win32 API directly. Some specific examples: - JavaScriptCore/heap/MachineStackMarker.h only works with pthreads; - FastMalloc works with pthreads or Win32 API; - ThreadSpecific uses pthreads, Qt, Gtk, or Win32 API; - code in various ThreadingXXX.cpp and MainThreadXXX.cpp files is entirely custom. Chromium doesn't even use supposedly cross-platform parts in MainThread.cpp. This was done to avoid the queue that callOnMainThread creates. It causes both subtle bugs and performance problems for Chromium. Our native MessageLoop can implement MainThread.h directly and without those issues, so it makes sense for us to just use our port's primitives. However, I realize this approach was not free of trouble. Recently, someone added cancelCallOnMainThread, which cannot be implemented easily on top of the Chromium MessageLoop. Fortunately, that method is not called by any code that the Chromium port compiles, but unfortunately, it is a bit of a ticking-timebomb. Someone will invariably try to use it and then be frustrated that Chromium doesn't support it. I think that it is a poor API because it requires searching the work queue, so I would prefer to remove cancelCallOnMainThread or redesign it so it can be implemented efficiently. -Darin Supporting multiple implementation has a high cost, both in the work directly applied to that, and in having subtle behavior differences. Checking svn blame for ThreadingQt.cpp and ThreadingGtk.cpp for example, I see that most lines are last touched by people who are not directly affiliated with these ports. I remember that performance was given as the primary reason to not use pthreads everywhere. What pthreads functionality in particular needs to be reimplemented in WTF for performance? And are there big reasons to use anything except for POSIX and Win32 APIs for us? Do we want to require that platforms support pthreads, so that code that isn't performance critical could have just one implementation? - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] pthreads and other threading primitives
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:08:41 -0400, Jarred Nicholls wrote: Do we want to require that platforms support pthreads, so that code that isn't performance critical could have just one implementation? That's the status quo :) MachineStackMarker only works with pthreads, so QtWin32 and Win ports need pthreads-win32 right now. pthreads is the least common denominator at the moment. Though there are performance reasons for getting away from that, there is also the fact that pthreads-win32 is an unmaintained project whose last update was 5 years ago. Since this thread started with bug 54836, I want to add that this is the main reason for the red WinCE buildbot. There is no official working pthread library for WinCE (at least for ARM) and it's not an easy task to get it working. So I prefer at least POSIX and Win32 API for threading stuff. - Patrick ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] pthreads and other threading primitives
Do we want to require that platforms support pthreads, so that code that isn't performance critical could have just one implementation? It might work to require either POSIX threads or Win32 threads in all build configurations, and refactor or remove other threading code. It's a bit weird to require POSIX threads on Windows, since, as Jarred points out, the implementation isn't really maintained. Geoff ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Enable REQUEST_ANIMATION_FRAME on all ports? (was Re: ENABLE flag cleanup strawman proposal)
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: On Sep 25, 2011, at 12:20 AM, James Robinson wrote: The TIMER based support for RAF is very new (only a few weeks old) and still has several major bugs. I'd suggest letting it bake for a bit before considering turning it on for all ports. Got it. Fundamentally I don't think this feature can be implemented reasonably well with just timers, so port maintainers should take a really careful look at the level of support they want to have for this feature when deciding if they want to support it. This may contradict the recommendation above. If the timer-based version is too low quality then maybe we shouldn’t put ports in the position of shipping with a substandard implementation rather than simply having the feature omitted. Perhaps if I expand on my concerns a bit it'll be clearer what the right option is. The goal of requestAnimationFrame is to allow web authors to have high-quality script-driven animations. To use a concrete example, when playing angry birds (http://chrome.angrybirds.com/) and flinging a bird across the terrain, the RAF-based animation should move the bird at a uniform rate across the screen at the same framerate as the physical display without hitches or interruptions. An additional goal is that we shouldn't do any unnecessary work for frames that do not show up on screen, although it's generally necessary to do this in order to satisfy the first goal as I'll show below. There are two main things that you need in order to achieve this that are difficult or impossible to do with a WebCore Timer: a reliable display-rate aligned time source, and a source of feedback from the underlying display mechanism. The first is easiest to think about with an example. When the angry bird mentioned above is flying across the screen, the user should experience the bird advancing by the same amount every time their display's update refreshes. Let's assume a 60Hz display and a 15ms timer (as the current REQUEST_ANIMATION_FRAME_TIMER code uses), and furthermore assume (somewhat optimistically) that every frame takes 0ms to process in javascript and 0ms to display. The screen will update at the following times (in milliseconds): 0, 16 2/3, 33 1/3, 50, 66 2/3, 83 1/3, 100, etc. The visual X position of the bird on the display is directly proportional to the time elapsed when the rAF handler runs, since it's interpolating the bird's position, and the rAF handler will run at times 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, etc. We can thus determine the visual X position of the bird for each frame: Frame 0, time 0ms, position: 0, delta from last frame: Frame 1, time 16 2/3ms, position: 15, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 2, time 33 1/3ms, position: 30, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 3, time 50 0/3 ms, position: 45, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 4, time 66 2/3 ms, position: 60, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 5, time 83 1/3 ms, position: 75, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 6, time 100 0/0 ms, position: 90, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 7, time 116 2/3ms, position: 105, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 8, time 133 1/3ms, position: 120, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 9, time 150 0/3 ms, position: 150, delta from last frame: 30 (!) Frame 10, time 166 2/3 ms, position: 165, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 11, time 183 1/3 ms, position: 180, delta from last frame: 15 Frame 12, time 200 0/0 ms, position: 195, delta from last frame: 15 What happened at frame 9? Instead of advancing by 15 milliseconds worth, the bird jumped forward by twice the normal amount. Why? We ran the rAF callback twice between frames 8 and 9 - once at 135ms and once at 150ms. What's actually going on here is we're accumulating a small amount of drift on every frame (1.6... milliseconds, to be precision) between when the display is refreshing and when the callbacks are being invoked. This has to catch up sometime so we end up with a beat pattern every (16 2/3) / abs(16 2/3 - 15) = 10 frames. The same thing happens with a perfect 16ms timer every 25 frames, or with a perfect 17ms timer every 50 frames. Even a very close timer will produce these regular beat patterns and as it turns out the human eye is incredibly good at picking out and getting annoyed by these effects in an otherwise smooth animation. For this reason, you really need a precise time source that is tied in to the actual display's refresh rate. Not all displays are exactly 60Hz - at smaller form factors 50 or even 55hz displays are not completely unheard of. Additionally the normal clock APIs aren't always precise enough to stay in sync with the actual display - particularly on windows it's really hard to find a clock that doesn't drift around all over the place. The above analysis assumes that all calls are infinitely fast and there's no real contention for system resources. In practice, though, this is rarely the case. It's not uncommon that the system will temporarily get overloaded
