I do however it's not exactly formalized. I just played around with it when I was working on the couchdb plugin for android and did some testing. I can put something together though. I think the main issue is not if it is faster or not but rather if it breaks on devices (other than the 2.3 emulator) which I seriously doubt.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you have proof that addJavascriptInterface is faster despite the fact > that we're not using WebView.loadUrl? I seriously think we're missing a > large part of the picture if we don't account for that. > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I wonder how other frameworks get > > > around this issue? > > > > > > They don't as it's a 2.3 emulator only issue. > > > > +1 for adding addJavascriptInterface back it's just 10x faster for > > everything other than simple operations (like taking a picture). > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 7, 2012, Filip Maj wrote: > > > > > > > Something to chalk up on the todo list: test all of the Adobe VAN + > SF > > > > office Androids with that app you put out. > > > > > > > > >We can bring addJavascriptInterface > > > > >back, but I don't think it's going to magically make things better. > > > > > > > > Maybe we could do a benchmark between XHR, prompt and addJSInterace > and > > > > see which one has best performance. And this might sound crazy but > > maybe > > > > even open our methodology and numbers up ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Simon Mac Donald > > > http://hi.im/simonmacdonald > > > > > >
