On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Dmitry Titov wrote:
> At first look, this would solve same use cases as SharedScript. The
> difference is that it has to be passed to participating windows explicitly.
> Summing up, just for reference:
>
> var mySharedScriptContext = new SharedScriptContext("foo.js");
> mySharedScriptContext.onload = ...;
>
> later:
> var win = window.open(...);
> win.functionThatTakesSharedScriptContext(mySharedScriptContext);
>
> alternatively, later:
> var win = window.getWindowByName("foo"); // does not create a window if there
> is no "foo", searches in same process
> if (win)
> win.functionThatTakesSharedScriptContext(mySharedScriptContext);
>
> and, possibly: add a list (regexp?) to App Cache manifest to describe the set
> of URLs loaded into the same process to make them able to find each other
> without relying on window.open().
The idea behind SharedScriptContext+getWindowByName was that it would be
possible to do (in your new window)
if (sharedWin = getWindowByName("OriginWindow"))
sharedContext = sharedWin.sharedContext;
else {
name = "OriginWindow";
sharedContext = new SharedScriptContext("foo.js");
}
At least that was my understanding.
What is your application cache suggestion attempting to do? The whole point of
getWindowByName is that it doesn't need window.open
All that said, Darin, Maciej and I were discussing this on IRC earlier and it
would seem that simply adding getWindowByName (or some such) would gain a very
large amount of the behaviour desired in the {Shared, Global}Script[Context]
concept.
--Oliver
>
> Dmitry
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:31 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> 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.
>
> I think my primary concern is that the use of _Shared_ or _Global_ in the
> name implies behaviour similar to that of SharedWorker, which is not
> guaranteed, likewise origin based object lifetime can trivially result in
> differences in behaviour between browser (which when coupled with the naming
> issue) could easily become a headache for developers.
>
> It seems that what is really wanted is a Worker context that isn't actually a
> separate thread, so avoiding the need for postMessage, and have it be
> explicitly instantiated so as to avoid any browser-architecture derived
> behavioural differences. eg.
>
> var mySharedContext = new SharableScriptContext("script to load here?");
> mySharedContext.onload = function() {
> doStuff();
> }
> // or should it be
> // mySharedContext.src = "script to load here?"
>
> Later on:
> function doSomethingCoolThatNeedsANewWindow() {
> var win = window.open(...);
> win.onload = function() {
> win.functionThatTakesScriptContext(mySharedContext);
> }
> }
>
> // Note handling the passing of the shared context is entirely developer
> defined -- eg. the only spec behaviour is the 'new SharableScriptContext'
> everything else is whatever the developers wants
> // Note 2: I am truly awful at naming things so these names are mostly chosen
> to clarify unambiguously-ish what i believe the goal is
>
> The downside is that it requires manually passing the context to new windows,
> the plus side is that it doesn't provide (or imply) behaviour that may be
> ('necessarily') different between UAs.
>
> --Oliver
>
>
>
> This seems pretty compelling to me.
>
> I think if we also had a function like window.getWindowByName(name), then we
> could support the use case of a newly opened window connecting to an existing
> window to get access to an existing SharableScriptContext.
>
> (To further support sharing from a newly opened window, perhaps it would be
> interesting if application manifests could be leveraged to identify URLs that
> should be loaded in the same browsing context.)
>
> -Darin
>
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
