On 12/05/2012 05:25 PM, Donovan Preston wrote:
> 1) Yes. A lot better.
>
> 2) Because of the way both solutions are architected. Appcache uses many
> many cross-process calls, packaged does not. cjones said that at the
> beginning of the project they had to make a choice between fixing
> appcache and doing packaged, and they chose doing packaged. I only found
> out about this last week.
We really decided to do packaged apps in June, mostly because this was
the only way to implement the security model. It's true that this gave
us a performance boost, mostly because appcache is complex and our
implementation not optimal.
> 3) Not sure. We're obviously not fixing it for b2g v1... Because of the
> way cjones has talked about it, I assume there are fundamental
> architectural flaws or something, or I assume they just would have fixed
> it instead of replacing it.
Appcache has both design flaws (impossible to fix before we have
appcache v2), and we face gecko implementation defects.
> Personally I would like to know the real reason it is hard to fix
> appcache, because appcache would be a hell of a lot more convenient than
> packaging the third party apps, but we need all the performance help we
> can get.
Long story short: our appcache implementation does too much I/O to
update its state, and even does some of this I/O on the main thread.
This is all fixable, but not trivial.
Fabrice
--
Fabrice Desré
b2g team
Mozilla Corporation
_______________________________________________
dev-b2g mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
