Re: Flash and e10s
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Markus Stange msta...@themasta.com wrote: On 07.08.13 06:39, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Running windowed Flash within the content process itself would mean giving that content process access to the main window's HWND. What would be the disadvantages of forcing wmode=transparent for content process flash? That might help. The other issues are still serious. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.rt 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 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Flash and e10s
On 8/6/2013 8:46 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: I was talking to people about plans for Flash on e10s. Who were you talking to? John Schoenick currently owns that bug, although I don't think he's working on it yet. We've talked about it on an off. 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. The primary reason I know for windowed Flash to be a huge PITA is because of the deadlock issues caused by attached input queues. I'd love to force Flash to be windowless and use our fullscreen support instead of their own windows, because this would fix many of the deadlock issues. What other issues are you concerned about specifically? 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.) It is neither a goal nor feasible. We did user research into this at the beginning of the year, and there is enough hidden Flash out on the web that click to play is just too confusing for the average user. Having a master plugin process and connecting all the content processes to seems like a fairly well-understood problem. It's work, and it's not work I want do until we're sure we're committing to e10s in desktop Firefox. But I don't think it presents such a technical barrier that we should attempt to work around it so drastically in the UI. --BDS ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Flash and e10s
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.uswrote: The primary reason I know for windowed Flash to be a huge PITA is because of the deadlock issues caused by attached input queues. I'd love to force Flash to be windowless and use our fullscreen support instead of their own windows, because this would fix many of the deadlock issues. That would be nice. What other issues are you concerned about specifically? Managing window geometry from the master process is going to be a bit of a pain, since we'll have to combine information from the content process(es) with information about the geometry and visibility of the browsing context. It's doable though. 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.) It is neither a goal nor feasible. We did user research into this at the beginning of the year, and there is enough hidden Flash out on the web that click to play is just too confusing for the average user. OK, that's very good to know. That scotches my idea. Thanks! Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.rt 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 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Flash and e10s
Mozilla proposed the NPAPI changes to get rid of windowed plug-ins [1] but there wasn't a big enough reason to change the Flash Player at that time--the threat of content breakage wasn't that high. If content breakage is certain via multi-process with windowed plug-ins, then Adobe will likely be more motivated to make the changes. Should I get a call going over there? --Jet [1]https://wiki.mozilla.org/NPAPI:AsyncDrawing - Original Message - From: Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org To: Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.us Cc: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, John Schoenick jo...@mozilla.com, Bill McCloskey wmcclos...@mozilla.com Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 2:20:05 PM Subject: Re: Flash and e10s On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.uswrote: The primary reason I know for windowed Flash to be a huge PITA is because of the deadlock issues caused by attached input queues. I'd love to force Flash to be windowless and use our fullscreen support instead of their own windows, because this would fix many of the deadlock issues. That would be nice. What other issues are you concerned about specifically? Managing window geometry from the master process is going to be a bit of a pain, since we'll have to combine information from the content process(es) with information about the geometry and visibility of the browsing context. It's doable though. 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.) It is neither a goal nor feasible. We did user research into this at the beginning of the year, and there is enough hidden Flash out on the web that click to play is just too confusing for the average user. OK, that's very good to know. That scotches my idea. Thanks! Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.rt 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 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Flash and e10s
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. 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.rt 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 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Flash and e10s
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org 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.rt 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 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Flash and e10s
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Justin Lebar justin.le...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org 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? Yes. Running windowed Flash within the content process itself would mean giving that content process access to the main window's HWND. That's not really an option for sandboxing, AIUI. Also, running windowed Flash within the content process would not work with multiple content processes, AIUI. Also, running Flash in the same process as content sucks more than running it in its own process. The best option for proper support of Flash would probably be a Flash process hanging off the master process, with content processes granted channels to the Flash process via IPDL trickery, plus some extra work to have the content process tell the master process how to position and clip each Flash window. It's going to be complex. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.rt 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 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
