I've been playing around with the canvas element, making a 3D engine. It
works, but is incredibly slow. Part of the reason is probably that the
browser renders the canvas everytime I draw something to it. In a 3D engine,
as well as a game engine, the entire canvas is erased and redrawn several
Am Freitag, den 04.09.2009, 12:07 -0600 schrieb Alex Henrie:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Simon Pieterssim...@opera.com wrote:
It should be noted that both IE and Opera first tried to use just the
filename, but independently found that it was incompatible with existing
content.
And
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Chris Jones cjo...@mozilla.com wrote:
And if the intention is to make scripts appear to run atomically, then I
think there are better ways to specify that than storage mutex.
That sounds good, how?
My problem with storage mutex boils down to the fact that by
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Marius Gundersen gunder...@gmail.comwrote:
I've been playing around with the canvas element, making a 3D engine. It
works, but is incredibly slow. Part of the reason is probably that the
browser renders the canvas everytime I draw something to it. In a 3D
WenboZhu wrote:
While the concerns on the server-side are overstated, the analogy to http is
also questionable ... The current protocol, being a *scoket* layer protocol,
is in principle different than http, which is strictly a L7 RPC protocol.
Wenbo,
TCP/IP does not map well to OSI layer
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Chris Jones cjo...@mozilla.com
mailto:cjo...@mozilla.com wrote:
And if the intention is to make scripts appear to run atomically,
then I think there are better ways to specify that than storage mutex.
That sounds good, how?
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Chris Jones cjo...@mozilla.com wrote:
I mean prevent the UA from affecting a script's execution. The cases I've
thought of so far where we will probably have to break storage-mutex
semantics are
* clear private data
* close tab
* quit UA
I think these
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Chris Jones cjo...@mozilla.com
mailto:cjo...@mozilla.com wrote:
I mean prevent the UA from affecting a script's execution. The
cases I've thought of so far where we will probably have to break
storage-mutex semantics are
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Nils Dagsson
Moskoppnils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Also, we could settle this. A sizable non-exhaustive list of problematic
sites could end this discussion soon. Just sayin'.
Let's get biblical. Precisely how sizable is sufficient for us
