(apologies for repost) On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Yury Semikhatsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It seemed complicated to allow other processes direct access to the >> DOM, so we were not going to do that. > > But many extensions will need to access the DOM one way or another. > Are you going to restrict this access or probably inject extensions > code directly into the page(as it's described in early design document)?
I think the biggest difference between what the out of process inspector needs and what the extension system needs is that we don't need to keep a mirror of the DOM in the extension processes. For extensions that need to modify or inspect page content, the model will be that they inject script into the page and then use higher level message passing. That said, if you guys really nail this remote DOM API and get it to perform well, it could be interesting to extensions as well. I'm a little dubious since the performance needs are likely a bit different when you're debugging a process. In our case, we're really trying hard to avoid noticeable slowdowns in interactive page performance. Erik --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
