Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-07-15 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 7/15/16 6:33 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: While I've been looking at other things, have we already gained an object that tracks the load of a document all the way from when the navigation starts at link click through redirects before the document object exists? Sort of. There's the LoadInfo.

Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-07-07 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 7/7/16 6:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: 2) Create the loadgroup when we're starting the document request. The channel would just keep it alive while it's active; if we end up creating a document, the document can

Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-07-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 2) Create the loadgroup when we're starting the document request. The > channel would just keep it alive while it's active; if we end up creating a > document, the document can grab it from the channel and store it. This

Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-05-20 Thread Ben Kelly
On May 20, 2016 6:14 PM, "Jonas Sicking" wrote: > That doesn't sound good. We should give each worker its own loadgroup. > Independent of if it's a dedicated, shared or service worker. > > Or is there a reason to share loadgroup with the document that I'm missing? Not sure. I

Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-05-20 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: >> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky >>

Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-05-20 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> Thoughts? Any obvious problems with this plan? > > We have the concept of network requests made from workers not associated > with a single

Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-05-20 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 5/20/16 11:28 AM, smaug wrote: (1) vs (2) isn't quite clear to me though. Do you mean with (2) that docshell wouldn't have any loagroup, but a channel? No. I mean that the docshell would have a loadgroup. When you navigate a docshell it would create the new channel, create a _new_

Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-05-20 Thread Boris Zbarsky
Background: We have a problem right now where the thing representing a "collection of loads" (a loadgroup) is attached to a docshell, not an individual document. This causes issues like loads started from unload events being blamed on the new page and whatnot, though it's possible that

Re: Redesigning the docshell/loadgroup/document interaction

2016-05-20 Thread Ben Kelly
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Thoughts? Any obvious problems with this plan? > We have the concept of network requests made from workers not associated with a single document. For example, SharedWorker attached to multiple documents or a