On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Robert O'Callahan <[email protected]> wrote: > I was talking to people about plans for Flash on e10s. > > Full support for windowed Flash on e10s is possible but would be a ton of > work. Flash is on a downward trajectory and it would be a shame to do a ton > of work to support something that may not be relevant for much longer.
Just to be clear about our assumptions here: You think it would be a lot of work to do anything with Flash and content processes, including running Flash within the content process itself? > One idea I had is this: suppose, independently of e10s, we make Flash > click-to-play. (I understand this is already a goal, or at least a wish.) > Then suppose we allowed click-to-play to reload the page. We would then be > able to ensure that any page where Flash is enabled is loaded directly in > the master process and everything would just work. That's not ideal, but > it's a fine stop-gap approach IMHO. > > As Shumway matures we could whitelist common sites where Shumway is known > to work, so those sites wouldn't need to be hoisted to the master process. > > One problem with these ideas is H.264 video sites on Windows XP. We're > stuck with using Flash there for now. We might need to impose a different > policy on Windows XP, backing off e10s more there perhaps. > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * > * > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
