I think we should go with the utility process. We've seen several
examples where this would be a useful concept to have.
As for the zip libraries, I seem to recall that we can marshal file
handles into sandboxed processes, but I'm not an expert on this.
Adam
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM, A
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>
> Right now, we are unpacking extensions in the browser process. This
> basically consists of unzipping the package into a directory structure
> and parsing a JSON manifest.
>
> Both of these things feel like things we should not be doing in
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>
> Right now, we are unpacking extensions in the browser process. This
> basically consists of unzipping the package into a directory structure
> and parsing a JSON manifest.
>
> Both of these things feel like things we should not be doing in
An advantage of the utility process is that it's not tied to the lifetime of
the tab, so we don't have to deal with edge cases like when the user closes
a tab that's mid-installing an extension.
Ojan
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> I think we should go with the utility pro
> The issue with images is with themes, since they're displayed by the
browser process.
The issue with images is also an issue with PageActions, where we want to
display icons (handed to us by an extension) inside the Omnibox.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Develope
Thanks for the replies!
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> I think we should go with the utility process. We've seen several
> examples where this would be a useful concept to have.
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Erik Kay wrote:
> There have been other cases people have br
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> We can use DuplicateHandle() to get the input file handle in, but I am
> not sure what to do about getting the directory sturcture out.
Crazy-talk: Have the renderer unpack the zip into a SQLite database.
Architecture-astronaut-talk: Have
Utility process is an amenable idea. We do something like that for
first-run import as well.
Key items, I can think of:
1- Utility process would not display UI (would it?)
2- We can allow a directory to be available for read/write
3- Use IPC for progress / heartbeat
In other words pretty much a
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, cpu wrote:
>
> Utility process is an amenable idea. We do something like that for
> first-run import as well.
>
> Key items, I can think of:
>
> 1- Utility process would not display UI (would it?)
> 2- We can allow a directory to be available for read/write
> 3- U
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, cpu wrote:
>
> Utility process is an amenable idea. We do something like that for
> first-run import as well.
>
> Key items, I can think of:
>
> 1- Utility process would not display UI (would it?)
> 2- We can allow a directory to be available for read/write
> 3- U
10 matches
Mail list logo
