On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:40:52PM -0800, Bobby Holley wrote: > I've seen a lot of momentum around migrating chrome-only XPIDL interfaces > to WebIDL. I'm concerned that insufficient attention is being paid to the > impact on our binary size. > > Fundamentally, the WebIDL bindings improve performance and spec correctness > at the expense of code size (and build times). This makes sense for things > that are web-exposed or performance-sensitive. But since the webidl > bindings are also more modern and easier to use, I'm concerned that people > will use them indiscriminately for all sorts of internal APIs, and our > binary will bloat by a thousand paper cuts. > > A WebIDL method binding can easily cost a kilobyte or more, depending on > the number and types of the arguments. If we were to convert all of our > existing xpidl methods, we could approach 10MB in added code size.
Last time I looked at bindings, I was horrified to see all the various strings that all look the same except between bindings for field and class names. I wonder how much of the bindings cost in terms of binary size is due to that, or other similar inefficiencies. At least there seems to be a low hanging fruit there. (IIRC, the same was true of ipdl bindings) Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
