On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Linus Upson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I realize this is not a small request, but it would be better if we could > move to a model where the browser was sandboxed and talked to a much simpler > process to carry out trusted operations on its behalf. While I like the general goal of what you're proposing, the downside of this approach is that if there's a crash, you lose the browser process. If we still wind up storing much of the state of the browser in this main process, then we lose a lot of state and potentially cause much of the browser to become unusable (I'm assuming that the whole browser wouldn't crash since the 'microkernel' would likely keep everything running). When one of these utility process crashes, we only lose that operation. Erik > Linus > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Eric Roman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Here is a design document for http://crbug.com/11746 >> >> >> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-documents/out-of-process-v8-pac >> >> Feedback welcome. >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
