>> (1) 50% of time spent in style calculation forced by accessing
>> element.offsetHeight in JavaScript.
>
> Geoff - I am going to bite the bullet and rip this logic out. We are
> pushing too much complexity into the browser.
Bear in mind that I didn't do enough analysis to explain why the .offs
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> I think we're talking about a couple of different things now:
>
> 1) Table of what the WebKit community as a whole (instead of individual point
> maintainers) thinks should be enabled in stable releases. This would be input
> to port
>> will you be interested in creating a reduced test cases where WebKit is slow?
Ryosuke - For now, user complaints about slowness are too
unpredictable and poorly defined for me to create a simple test case.
I will report back here if we reach that point.
> (1) 50% of time spent in style calcula
On Feb 13, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stephen White
> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I don't know about other organizations, but from Apple's point of view, it's
> rare that we'd want to publicly promise that
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stephen White wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> I don't know about other organizations, but from Apple's point of view,
>> it's rare that we'd want to publicly promise that we'll never implement
>> something. We'd just want t
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do agree that distinguishing "test not applicable to this port" from
>>> "this test is temporarily failing f
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> I do agree that distinguishing "test not applicable to this port" from "this
>> test is temporarily failing for unknown reasons" is a good thing to do. It
>> is unfortunate tha
I think we're talking about a couple of different things now:
1) Table of what the WebKit community as a whole (instead of individual point
maintainers) thinks should be enabled in stable releases. This would be input
to port maintainers looking to make a release.
2) Documenting what enable fl
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:31 PM, David Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jon Lee wrote:
>> > I also have concerns about backwards compatibility support. Aside from
>> > Gmail, what other web sites have integrated the notificatio
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jon Lee wrote:
> Hi! Lots of responses below (mashed previous replies together for topic
> coherency):
>
> John Gregg wrote:
>
> Which missing aspects of the Feature permissions spec are you concerned
>> about?
>>
>
> I was only referring to the fact that the spec
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jon Lee wrote:
> > I also have concerns about backwards compatibility support. Aside from
> > Gmail, what other web sites have integrated the notifications feature? I
> > could only find example pages, one of w
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jon Lee wrote:
> I also have concerns about backwards compatibility support. Aside from
> Gmail, what other web sites have integrated the notifications feature? I
> could only find example pages, one of which was using already an outdated
> API.
IRCCloud is an exa
Hi! Lots of responses below (mashed previous replies together for topic
coherency):
John Gregg wrote:
> Which missing aspects of the Feature permissions spec are you concerned about?
>
> I was only referring to the fact that the spec calls for a separate generic
> interface for permissions with
Not sure what tools you have used but you may find this helpful:
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/speedtracer/
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Steven Young wrote:
> [cross posting from mozilla's dev lists]
>
> I'm on the Timeline team at Facebook, which is going to be the new
> format for ever
(Re-sending from the right address...)
I'd +1 Adam's point.
It would be great if we can do something like "webkit-build --gtk
--stable", "webkit-build --chromium --canary" or "webkit-build
--nightly" where the script read the central configuration file and
find an appropriate configuration. In th
I’m really enjoying how the cleanup is going so far. The IDL attribute names
are noticeably clearer and more consistent.
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > For example, we might want to use only Skipped files for tes
On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think you raise a good point. Another point worth mentioning is that
> sometimes a feature can be complete and useful in one port, but half-baked in
> another (for example, fullscre
On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> >
> > For example, we might want to use only Skipped files for tests that
> > are always planned to be skipped, and test_expectations
Related to this is the question of what ports are even on for various ports.
I don't believe it's possible today to list what features are on for
what ports. At least not without a lot of emailing...
Before designing a finer-granularity on/off switch, it seems it might
make sense to have a globa
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In general, the decision of whether a given feature is enabled or not is
>> made by each port. However, at last year's W3C TPAC, there were complaints
>> from other p
Profiling scrolling through my own timeline, and focusing on points where the
CPU hit 100% or greater, I saw this:
(1) 50% of time spent in style calculation forced by accessing
element.offsetHeight in JavaScript.
> We then have JS which checks the heights of all the
> stories on in the offscre
Hi Steve.
Do you have a test account with a fixed content set that we can use for
profiling?
It's hard to speculate about performance issues without profiling, and we might
get confused if we all profile different content.
Thanks,
Geoff
___
webkit-d
It's hard for me to advice you on how to optimize your website but will you
be interested in creating a reduced test cases where WebKit is slow?
I'm sure we can (at least try to) resolve your pain points if you can
create benchmarks licensed under BSD/LGPL or WebKit performance tests (see
http://t
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> > I think at one point Adam indicated he wanted to use them for the
> > Apple Win port, but he is still using the Skipped files since the Win
> > port is still using ORWT on the bots.
>
Hi,
Just as a heads up, I'm currently working on a very simple JSC debugger,
using the provided API and a simple TCP server to be able to connect to any
V8 debugger (read: node-inspector). I'm half-way through it and I'll
publish my code as soon as I have a working implementation.
I'm not complete
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> I think you raise a good point. Another point worth mentioning is that
> sometimes a feature can be complete and useful in one port, but half-baked
> in another (for example, fullscreen API was shipped in Safari and at the
> same time p
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> I think at one point Adam indicated he wanted to use them for the
> Apple Win port, but he is still using the Skipped files since the Win
> port is still using ORWT on the bots.
>
> That said, I understand why you're asking this (I think), but I
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In general, the decision of whether a given feature is enabled or not is made
> by each port. However, at last year's W3C TPAC, there were complaints from
> other participants about WebKit shipping half-baked implementations and
>
We actually want to kill the current debugging mechanisms as they're somewhat
archaic in their current form (they require substantial [and fragile] work on
the debugger side, and have a significant runtime cost). I'd be hesistant to
start building anything new on top of what's currently there,
On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Matt Veenstra wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for a tool to help debug JavaScript code for
> JavaScriptCore when NOT using a browser? I did a bit of research and
> did not find anything that seems to attach and debug at a code level
> and ignore the DOM.
>
> Is th
Thanks, we're aware of these dates and will keep them in mind.
-Adam
On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> There are some possible WG meetings in April and they are wondering if there
> are any significant conflicts. Specifically, will there be a WebKit meetup
> this year? Are the
This plan sounds reasonable to me. No disruption of Chrome extensions in the
short term, but we would better align with each other and with standards in the
longer term.
Jon?
Regards,
Maciej
On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
On rendering an application of size 1280X720 using webkit which is to be
finally shown on 960X540 window, after resizing the page using
WKPageSetZoomfactor API, layout of a div element breaks( made from three
images).Is their anyway to avoid that by using some other API or Is it
possible that may
34 matches
Mail list logo
