On 09/03/2018 00:06, Kris Maglione wrote:
There are different costs to WebIDL and XPIDL bindings. WebIDL bindings have more cost in terms of compiled code size. XPIDL have greater costs in terms of performance and runtime memory.
It's not that simple. In terms of runtime memory for example, XPIDL also has *different* costs than WebIDL (which requires a nsWrapperCache and CC integration). Depending on usage those might be greater or smaller.
How much have DOM peers been focusing on preventing over-use, so far? Granted, most of the WebIDL bindings I've created to date have been to address measurable performance issues, but I've never had a reviewer suggest that I should be worried about over-use.
I've certainly started to worry about it recently. I know you focused on performance sensitive interfaces specifically in your message (and in your patches), but I worry that that message will get lost over time. We really need to emphasize that there's a difference in cost. And there are fundamental differences between the two models that cause that.
That said, we should continue looking into reducing the cost of WebIDL in terms of binary size (and we are).
Peter _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
