"beta"

On Sep 5, 4:14 pm, "Yasin Hınıslıoğlu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder the whole product has been tested before release date. ":%"
> must have been inside one of the test cases, it obvious you might have
> underflow when you look at the code. I believe this bug does not
> befits a company like Google.
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Den Molib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Qian Qiao wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Camilo Aguilar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> Finnur, does this happen because the URL parsing code in chromium is a
> >>> shared code between browser kernel and rendering engine. Is that right ?
>
> >> I think it's only natural that you parse the URL in the parent
> >> process, i.e. the browser, then spawn the child process to render the
> >> URL.
>
> >> If it wasn't done like that, you'll have to spawn the renderer
> >> process, have it parse the URL and then render it. It's breaks
> >> modularity imo, since the renderer process is doing something it
> >> doesn't have to do, and it introduces a performance overhead (imagine
> >> you mistype your url a couple of times, you'll spawn unnecessary
> >> processes), and as we all know, spawning processes in some OS (windoze
> >> for example) isn't exactly the cheapest thing in the world.
>
> >> -- Joe
>
> > Also see the design document. The connections are made by the parent
> > process, which is the one which takes care of the sessions and the only
> > one knowing which cookies it needs to send.
> > Parsing the url at it is the only logical choice. It's just unfortunate
> > to have that problem precisely applying to the browser.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Chromium-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

  • Re: evil:% Temko

Reply via email to