On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed Oct 29 2014 at 10:58:08 AM Michal Mocny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hey > > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have anything working yet for the new > MozillaView, > > > but because MozillaView is so radically different than any other view, > > I've > > > been forced to re-think some things with our current exec script in > > > cordova.js, namely why we're still using a prompt-based solution for > > > NativeToJS API in 2014. > > > > > > I know that the reason we currently do this is because Android 2.3 > sucks > > > and addJavascriptInterface doesn't work in the Emulator, and since > people > > > only seem to test Android 2.3 in the emulator, we have to support this > > for > > > some reason. > > > > > > I'm thinking that since the performance, as well as rendering on > Android > > > 2.3.x is so sub-par, maybe we want to strongly recommend that people > use > > > MozillaView on 4.x and switch our bridge to do something else like poll > > > > > > > Do you mean MozillaView on 2.3? My concern here is that those devices > may > > only be on 512Mb ram and its hard to imagine an alternative webview > running > > well on that (since it loses opportunity to share system resources, it > has > > larger overheads than system webview). That said, if FF browser app is > > having success on 2.3 devices, perhaps this is no different. Perhaps > > mozilla folk have insights into FF browser app stats on 2.3 devices? > > > > Yeah, I meant 2.3. Is that what's keeping Chromium-based WebViews off > 2.3? I was hoping that KitKat and Lolipop would be killing off > Gingerbread, since we're not talking about 11% of all users instead of 25%. > Not sure KK and L will kill 2.3, but perhaps Android One etc will (cheap devices and 512 ram was previous motivation to continue shipping these old versions). > > > > > > addJavascriptInterface and have the messages be sent back that way > > > instead. I don't know if there's additional drawbacks to this > approach, > > > which is why I'm asking here. > > > > > > Also, maybe it's time to re-think the encoding of the messages? If we > > can > > > support moving JSON over the bridge we should do so instead of > depending > > on > > > string encodings. It's what's being done with Mozilla and I'm going to > > > have to write the MozillaView as almost a separate platform and I'll > have > > > to override exec with it's stuff, since it's not a WebKit/Blink > WebView, > > > and instead has a sane way to pass stuff across. :P > > > > > > > Last time I took a look at the bridge I asked the same question. > Currently > > encoding looks crazy at first glance. Upon further inspection, it may be > > difficult to compete on throughput with a more cleanly implementation, > and > > thats the reason for the ugly. I'm all for an investigation into > > improvements here, but we should start with benchmarks and an > understanding > > of what would be an acceptable regression (if any). > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Joe > > > > > >
