Jetpack/e10s: Difference between revisions
< Jetpack
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= | = E10S updates from zombie = | ||
* | * questions from last week | ||
** | ** E10S stuff should not break Fennec (modulo my mistakes) | ||
* | ** Frame Scripts run with chrome Principal, but we have Components/Sandbox | ||
* | * first e10s (smoke) test running on CI (and passing ;) | ||
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1004833 resurect cfx --e10s and add a package.json flag] | ** [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1004833 resurect cfx --e10s and add a package.json flag] | ||
* | * the more i learn about E10S, the less i'm sure in my first proposed approach | ||
** (attach small Frame Script that forwards messages across boundaries) | |||
** | ** afaict, the original assumption when designing jetpack APIs was that a DOM window was going to be a barrier between Parent and Child processes (not true) | ||
* | ** different code paths for xul:iframes not inside tabs? (they are not remote) | ||
* | |||
** | |||
= previous weeks = | = previous weeks = |
Revision as of 03:27, 13 May 2014
E10S updates from zombie
- questions from last week
- E10S stuff should not break Fennec (modulo my mistakes)
- Frame Scripts run with chrome Principal, but we have Components/Sandbox
- first e10s (smoke) test running on CI (and passing ;)
- the more i learn about E10S, the less i'm sure in my first proposed approach
- (attach small Frame Script that forwards messages across boundaries)
- afaict, the original assumption when designing jetpack APIs was that a DOM window was going to be a barrier between Parent and Child processes (not true)
- different code paths for xul:iframes not inside tabs? (they are not remote)