On 2013-05-18, at 06:09 , David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As part of the ongoing effort to make (Chrome) Workers useful for
> platform refactorings, we have been working on a lightweight module
> loader for workers (bug 872421). This loader implements a minimal
> versi
On 5/28/2013 5:08 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
On 5/27/13 7:34 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The alternative is to use C++ workers. This doesn't work for addons
obviously, but those aren't yet a concern for B2G.
Well, my main concern is front-end- and add-on-accessible code.
Normally, it sho
On 5/27/13 7:34 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> The alternative is to use C++ workers. This doesn't work for addons
> obviously, but those aren't yet a concern for B2G.
Well, my main concern is front-end- and add-on-accessible code.
Normally, it shouldn't influence B2G.
> Weren't we moving addons into
The alternative is to use C++ workers. This doesn't work for addons
obviously, but those aren't yet a concern for B2G.
Weren't we moving addons into separate processes anyway?
/ Jonas
On May 24, 2013 12:39 AM, "David Rajchenbach-Teller"
wrote:
> Well, if we do not want the main thread to collap
Well, if we do not want the main thread to collapse under its weight, we
have to move code off the main thread and to encourage add-ons to do
likewise.
I'm not sure I see an alternative here.
Cheers,
David
On 5/24/13 1:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> My main concern is that Workers created by Gec
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 3:09 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As part of the ongoing effort to make (Chrome) Workers useful for
> platform refactorings, we have been working on a lightweight module
> loader for workers (bug 872421). This loader implements a minimal
It should be possible to share some modules between Jetpack and Workers,
for Jetpack modules that do not depend on DOM or XPCOM and Worker
modules that do not depend on Worker-only code. This is not an immediate
goal, but it is considered a-would-be-nice-to-have.
Cheers,
David
On 5/20/13 8:53 PM
On 5/18/2013 3:09 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Hi everyone,
As part of the ongoing effort to make (Chrome) Workers useful for
platform refactorings, we have been working on a lightweight module
loader for workers (bug 872421). This loader implements a minimal
version of CommonJ
Hi everyone,
As part of the ongoing effort to make (Chrome) Workers useful for
platform refactorings, we have been working on a lightweight module
loader for workers (bug 872421). This loader implements a minimal
version of CommonJS modules, aka require.js.
Example:
// Setup the loade
9 matches
Mail list logo