On 05/20/2016 05:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Background: We have a problem right now where the thing representing a "collection
of loads" (a loadgroup) is attached to a docshell, not an
individual document. This causes issues like loads started from unload events
being blamed on the new page and whatnot, though it's possible that
loadinfo will help with some of those.
Proposal: We already have a concept of "document loadgroup"; right now it's
just the one for the docshell the document is in. I'm proposing that we
make it a separate loadgroup, whose parent is the docshell loadgroup. That is,
as you navigate a docshell, each document will get its own loadgroup,
all of these will be contained in the docshell's loadgroup, and subresources
loaded for each document will be placed in the _document_'s loadgroup.
There is one conceptual problem here, which is where to put the document
request itself. I think there are two options:
1) Put it in the docshell loadgroup. This is probably the simplest thing to
do, but it does have one significant drawback: it means onload handling
has to either stay in the docshell loadgroup or needs hacks to keep track of
the document request if it's moved to the document loadgroup, since the
document request itself is not in the document loadgroup.
2) Create the loadgroup when we're starting the document request. The channel
would just keep it alive while it's active; if we end up creating a
document, the document can grab it from the channel and store it. This might
just work out OK. It will require a bit more up-front work to handle
onload correctly.
In both cases, we will likely need to think a bit about the various
notification-firing docloader does (web progress listeners, basically) and how
to
keep that working reasonably.
I do think we want to keep the docshell-level loadgroup, so we can do things
like cancel everything for all documents when the docshell is torn down.
Not that there should be much in the way of loads for non-active documents, but
I'm not _that_ confident in this.
I believe this setup can be implemented somewhat incrementally, in that we can
land an initial change and then start simplifying various stuff
separately...
Thoughts? Any obvious problems with this plan?
-Boris
Sounds good.
(1) vs (2) isn't quite clear to me though. Do you mean with (2) that docshell
wouldn't have any loagroup, but a channel?
But then you say there would be docshell-level loadgroup... so doesn't that
mean that document's loadgroup would be in it, so (1).
I assume we'd reuse loadgroup in case same inner window is used for many
documents (initial about:blank), right?
-Olli
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
