On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Kartikaya Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12-06-11 17:42 , Nick Hurley wrote: >> >> So far, I've come up with 3 possible ways of having better crash >> recovery. In no particular order, they are: >> > > To me it seems like the simpler the approach, the better. I'm in favor of > option #1, unless somebody can show that it doesn't meet the requirements.
See Michal's post :) The perf hit may or may not be a deal breaker (we don't have any hard numbers to say one way or the other). Given that Chromium uses a similar method, it might not be too bad, but with the ever-increasing size of resources on the web, it may be a problem sooner rather than later. > Also, do you have somebody lined up to do this work already? I'm interested > in taking it on if you don't. As blassey pointed out, Fennec would benefit a > lot from having a more granular cache, since it gets killed a lot by > Android. We don't have anything set in stone yet, no. The general idea is that Michal and/or myself would work on it, given that we're the most familiar with the disk cache. However, since we don't even have a plan yet, it's kind of hard to allocate resources :) _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
