Adam Thompson <[email protected]> writes: >> 5. All of edbrowse is once again a c++ program (a minor nuisance). > > That assumes we stick with our already rather outdated spidermonkey version
Any progress with looking into duktape? Would you like me to have a go at it? > I'm not sure about the portability of <shared_memory_api> but I'm not sure > that's where we should go either. > I think, if I remember my original design correctly, > I was thinking more of having the DOM in a separate process, > may be even one per browser buffer. We went for just moving the js at the time > because we needed to encapsulate things and allow switching js engines, Yes, this is also how I remember that discussion. > I was thinking, seeing as we need all sorts of networking, > asynchronous processing etc, whether it'd make sense to look at using a > library to do this. So how would that look, exactly? > Or head down the above route. I'd also throw out there > that we have web sockets becoming a > progressively larger "thing" in web development, And we also have stuff like HTTP/2 server push coming up on us. _______________________________________________ Edbrowse-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
