Android has a direct bridge JS <-> Java through addJavascriptInterface() which I believe is the fastest solution BUT WebSockets could be an interesting approach for iOS.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Julien Bouquillon [revolunet] < [email protected]> wrote: > Have you take a look at how linkedin implemented the native to webview > bridge ? > > http://engineering.linkedin.com/mobile/linkedin-ipad-nativeweb-messaging-bridge-and-websockets > > They use a websocket which is must faster. This wont work on all androids > but could improve performance on new devices > > Julien > > 2012/5/11 Bryce Curtis <[email protected]> > > > I believe XHR is faster response on average and lower overhead than > > polling. I would expect addJavascriptInterface to be faster than > > prompt. If someone wants to write a test case for each, then we can > > try it ourselves and provide results to a wiki page to quantify it > > once and for all (or until the next Android version). > > > > My bet is that the optimal case would be to use loadUrl("javascript:") > > for Java->JS and addJavascriptInterface for JS->Java. Of course the > > problem with loadUrl("javascript:") is that it steals focus - though I > > remember reading somewhere that someone implied they found a solution > > - don't know what it was. > > > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
