On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, cpu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Utility process is an amenable idea. We do something like that for > first-run import as well. > > Key items, I can think of: > > 1- Utility process would not display UI (would it?) > 2- We can allow a directory to be available for read/write > 3- Use IPC for progress / heartbeat > > In other words pretty much a custom renderer.
I think it's also important to add the following: 4 - Very little (if any) state in the utility process so that restarting it is trivial. 5 - A design so that sync calls from browser to helper are OK. (If the utility process dies during a call, we can maybe retry and return an error if it crashes again.) As for #2, are you suggesting that the utility process would do all operations in its directory and then the browser process would push things in or pull them out before/after the processing is done? This might be a simple and element way to avoid having some extensive virtual file system layer. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
