On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Drew Wilson wrote: > > Following up, I think this highlights the distinct set of use cases that > shared workers and shared script address: > > SharedWorkers are a great platform for when you have a single database that > is shared across multiple instances of your web app, and you want to > coordinate updates to that database. I can imagine sharing a single > connection to the server, etc via SharedWorkers. > > SharedScripts are a good platform for when you want to share data/code (for > example, the immense body of Javascript used to implement the Gmail UI) > across multiple windows. I can't speak to whether passing a hidden iframe > between windows as was suggested in the other thread would address this use > case sufficiently. > > > Would it be fair to say the goal for SharedScript is just to share code and > data (to reduce memory use of multiple instances of GMail), and not network > connections, timers, or other APIs based on async callbacks (assuming those > either remain per-Window or are in the SharedWorker)? If so, then it would > pretty much completely be handled by sharing of some arbitrary JavaScript > object, possibly arranged by SharedWorker. > > Sharing an out-of-document HTMLIFrameElement would almost even account for > timers and the like, except that currently in WebKit a frame's Window does > not exist and its contents are not loaded if the frame is not rendered. > XHRs also don't work after the frame has been unloaded. -Darin > > - Maciej > > > -atw > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com> wrote: > >> I believe that the offline gmail team uses the Gears flavor of shared >> workers and is planning to migrate to the HTML5 version once DB access is >> supported from within worker context in shipping browsers. >> >> So I guess that Gmail would be a candidate app that has asked for both. >> >> -atw >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Dmitry Titov wrote: >>> >>> I don't think it's correct to say that SharedWorkers are not useful and >>>> "we need a SharedScript instead". They are different things and can address >>>> different use cases. For example, SharedWorker is great to make sure there >>>> is only one 'app instance' running - exactly because it is shared >>>> inter-process, it can be used as a "inter-process synchronization >>>> primitive" >>>> to control how many app instances are opened. SharedScript is a container >>>> for data and code shared between pages that comprise a "web application" >>>> and >>>> normally run in the same process. As in native apps, whether or not >>>> multiple >>>> instances of the app can run at the same time depends on the author of the >>>> app, and can be done either way. >>>> >>> >>> Are there any Web apps at Google or elsewhere currently using >>> SharedWorker? Would any of them still use it if they could switch to >>> SharedScript? Has any app team specifically requested support for *both* >>> SharedWorker *and* SharedScript? (Serious questions, since the justification >>> for SharedScript is largely based on Web developer feedback.) >>> >>> Note: if SharedScript was really globally shared it could be used to >>> implement shared workers - simply have the SharedScript manage the per-app >>> Workers. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Maciej >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> webkit-dev mailing list >>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
