Please find my comments below, thanks!
- Ming, Bai
On 02/13/2014 11:34 PM, Baptiste Durand wrote:
Hello Xiang,
I have some questions about your proposal.
Currently, crosswalk interfaces are provided through dbus session,
correct?
We need to have only 1 AMD process for the system, as done in the
legacy WRT model.
As I understand, the control is done through 3 processes
AMD <=> Xwalk launcher <=> Xwalk deamon <=> (APPs) .
^ ^
| |
IPC User D-Bus iface
I would like to clarify why we need to have 1 xwalk-launcher process
per APP launched.
Could you please provide some details about the exact aim of Xwalk
launcher process?
The launcher process is the representation of a web process under the OS
perspective. Since we introduced the shared runtime process model, a
single web process is no longer a standalone process bundle consisted of
runtime/renderer/extension processes. Each application's
render/extension processes now are all under the control of one central
runtime process which is called the daemon here, therefore we need
something else to handle the following tasks on behalf of each web
application and acting like a native one:
Whenever we launch a new application, a new launcher process is created,
then the other OS components knows that there is a new application (they
do not necessarily knows that it's a web app) and update their status
like showing a new entry in the task manager etc..
Whenever the launcher is killed, the runtime process will be notified
and knowing that the web app should be terminated accordingly. Instead
of directly killing the rp/ep, now we have enough time to deal with the
clean-up tasks and inform the web app with a termination message.
With the help of the launcher, web applications can behave exactly like
a native app. It helped us avoid massive hacking/tweaking other system
components for their awareness of the special web applications running
under our web runtime.
As xwalk deamon offers interfaces through dbus user interfaces that
could be used only by user associated . It seems to be difficult to
manage multiple user at same time.
The d-bus protocol is only supposed to be used between xwalk runtime
components, i.e. launcher, daemon, etc.. Under a multi-user environment,
the daemon should run in session bus I suppose.
Could you clarify your point of view about this specific aspect?
In my point of view, xwalk deamon could provide interfaces management
over socket
Because I thinks it will be more preferable to use socket IPC between
AMD and xwalk deamon, that permits to manage eaily all APP (as
describe in AMD-socket.png).
<=> xwalk deamon. (for USER A) over socket /run/user/<USER
A>/alaunch/1
AMD <=> xwalk deamon. (for USER B) over socket /run/user/<USER
B>/alaunch/1
<=> xwalk deamon. (for USER C) over socket /run/user/<USER
C>/alaunch/1
Connecting AMD and xwalk is possible but I won't suggest doing that
because we need to tweak either AMD or xwalk or both and we will create
a interdependence between them. The launcher process can make them
decoupled and don't even aware of the existence of each other.
Therefore, from this point of view, whether using socket or d-bus seems
like not that important.
Sakari said to me today, that interface dbus is develloped under
crosswalk project and it s not related to Chromium / blink project.
We are wondering if it is possible to propose a control interface
through socket interface.
What is your point of view on it?
Thanks in advance for feedback.
BR
Baptiste DURAND
2014-02-13 7:01 GMT+01:00 Long, Xiang <xiang.l...@intel.com
<mailto:xiang.l...@intel.com>>:
Hi,
As the support for Application API becomes necessary again(per
Tizen IVI requirement), would you revisit the doc?
I will start with application info/event/ops APIs, as mentioned in
the "Implementation Plan" section.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10rDpiH2E2bSOp0gg3FNK-2eFIetkPygM98utBv-tB3I/edit#
Thanks,
Long Xiang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poussa, Sakari
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:02 PM
> To: Long, Xiang; Barbieri, Gustavo; Pozdnyakov, Mikhail; Kenneth
Rohde
> Christiansen; Oliveira, Caio
> Cc: crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen]
Application API
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not saying that we should never implement it. Rather, take
a timeout
> now and see where and when the real need is.
>
> About your concerns:
>
> 1. See above. If we truly need it, we'll do it. But now it is
not the
> right time.
> 2. We need to re-visit our runtime model plans and those APIs
are related
> to that
> 3. Wayland, new EFL and e18 versions are the biggest changes in
3.0. So
> things will be different.
>
> BR; Sakari
>
> On 1/16/14, 5:02, "Long, Xiang" <xiang.l...@intel.com
<mailto:xiang.l...@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> >Hi Sakari,
> >
> >Right, the app control part is a poor-man's
WebIntents/WebActivities.
> >But as I know, the app control feature really works on Tizen(at
least in
> >2.1), there're already QA test cases for it.
> >And seems the legacy WRT are adding new features to it, like
> >"disposition" field support.
> >
> >IMO the app control part is an important system level app
interaction
> >API, native Tizen app also provides such feature.
> >Other APIs also have dependency on it. One example is the
Notification
>
>API(https://developer.tizen.org/dev-guide/2.2.1/org.tizen.web.device.apire
> >ference/tizen/notification.html#postidp141560).
> >
> >So my concerns are:
> >1. If we don't support app control, a big feature will be missed on
> >Crosswalk, and API like Notification will break.
> >
> >2. How about other parts of the Application API set? Like app
info, app
> >launch/kill, app install/update/uninstall events, and etc.
> >Should we implement them anyway?
> >
> >3. Do you know will there big change for the Tizen app core
> >framework(like AUL, window management), and app control for
Tizen 3.0?
> >If this's true, then I'm totally agree to hold the app control part
> >implementation ATM.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Xiang
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Poussa, Sakari
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:33 PM
> >> To: Long, Xiang; Barbieri, Gustavo; Pozdnyakov, Mikhail;
Kenneth Rohde
> >> Christiansen
> >> Cc: crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen]
Application
> >>API
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I am very worried about this API for multiple reasons.
> >>
> >> First, it was invented for Tizen 1.0 as a OEpoor-mans¹
WebIntents. That
> >>is,
> >> temporary API similar to WebIntents and plan was to replace
that in
> >>Tizen
> >> 2.0 with proper WebIntents. We all know what happened with
WebIntents.
> >>It
> >> is dead but this API is not.
> >>
> >> Second, it is very complex API and may not work properly even
in Tizen
> >> 2.x. It would require a lot of time to develop, review, test
and debug.
> >> Big effort.
> >>
> >> Third, as I have said several times, we should focus on
implementing
> >>fewer
> >> APIs but making sure the ones we do work properly. In my
books, this API
> >> does not be belong to the category we should implement now.
We need to
> >> check our stakeholders, namely IVI program, and see if they
need this
> >>API.
> >>
> >> So before we have a clear need for this API, I would put the
> >> implementation effort on hold.
> >>
> >> BR; Sakari
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/15/14, 11:13, "Long, Xiang" <xiang.l...@intel.com
<mailto:xiang.l...@intel.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Thanks for the comments, I have updated the doc.
> >> >A new implementation plan section is created, and I copied some
> >> >background info from the previous doc for reference.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Xiang
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Barbieri, Gustavo
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:16 PM
> >> >> To: Pozdnyakov, Mikhail; Kenneth Rohde Christiansen; Long,
Xiang
> >> >> Cc: crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org>
> >> >> Subject: RE: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen]
Application
> >> >>API
> >> >>
> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > From: Crosswalk-dev
[mailto:crosswalk-dev-bounces@lists.crosswalk-
<mailto:crosswalk-dev-bounces@lists.crosswalk->
> >> >> > project.org <http://project.org>] On Behalf Of
Pozdnyakov, Mikhail
> >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:08 PM
> >> >> > To: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen; Long, Xiang
> >> >> > Cc: crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org>
> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen]
> >> >> > Application API
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi there,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unfortunately, for me it was really hard to understand
the intended
> >> >> > implementation proposal from the doc (left some comments
there with
> >> >> > clarification requirements).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I can add also that API at https://developer.tizen.org/dev-
> >> >> >
>
>>guide/2.2.1/org.tizen.web.device.apireference/tizen/application.html
> >> >> > is really over-complicated.
> >> >> > Think we might consider partial implementation, and we
definitely
> >> >> > should have an implementation schedule starting with the
basic and
> >> >> > simplest APIs.
> >> >>
> >> >> +1
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Crosswalk-dev mailing list
> >> >Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
<mailto:Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org>
> >>
>https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
> >
_______________________________________________
Crosswalk-dev mailing list
Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
<mailto:Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org>
https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
--
Baptiste DURAND
Eurogiciel Vannes/FR
_______________________________________________
Crosswalk-dev mailing list
Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
_______________________________________________
Crosswalk-dev mailing list
Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org
https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
