Replying to a previous comment by jam: > I'm not familiar with OS X so I can't comment on which specific > implementation to use. However I'm wondering if it's possible to code > proof of concepts of each method and time the latency? This will > matter even more if plugins are planned to be run out of process, in > which case there will be a lot of synchronous messages. >
Mach ports have the distinct advantage that they allow us to send Mach semaphores between processes and there's a good chance that FIFOs are implemented on top of them. So I think the decision is pretty clear for us. I definitely agree with you about the performance tests - if we don't have those already, it would definitely be good to add a bunch of them for the IPC Channel. Best regards, Jeremy On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Jeremy Moskovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Hi, > > You can find the design document for OS X IPC at: > > http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-documents/os-x-interprocess-communication > > This document is a work in progress, feedback and comments are > welcome. > > Best regards, > Jeremy > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
