> Test shell covers layer 3 and down. Unfortunately, all the
> performance you like is in layer 2.
Thanks for clarifying.
I have had some time to think about what you guys have been saying,
and I have decided to start out with kiosk mode. At some point in the
future I will probably want to remov
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> I want to make it clear, and it might be obvious by now, but
> test_shell isn't interesting to me. I just want the fastest browser
> engine that I can get.
>
> What makes Chromium different than WebKitGTK+ for my project, is that
> Chromium
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> Making the rendering part of Chromium easier to use for open source
> project would benefit projects such as mine or uzbl for instance. uzbl
> is a WebKitGTK+ browser that is controlled similar to Vim.
>
This is one of the reasons we are
I want to make it clear, and it might be obvious by now, but
test_shell isn't interesting to me. I just want the fastest browser
engine that I can get.
What makes Chromium different than WebKitGTK+ for my project, is that
Chromium renders the GTK stuff correctly with CSS transformations.
It's als
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/244003/show might be what you want.
>
>
> I thought this was intentionally abandoned because it was growing out of
> control. That's what I was alluding t
-- Evan Stade
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
>
>> > What? What OS? There shouldn't be any 1 pixel border in our fullscreen
>> > mode.
>>
>> It's in the Linux-version.
>>
>> In BrowserWindowGtk::InitWidgets() there
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Adam Langley wrote:
> You have an awful lot of work to get the Linux test_shell up to
> Chromium speeds.
I'm really opposed to doing work like this on test_shell.
It's not just that it's a waste of time. One of the reasons we have
test_shell is to be as simple
Sure.
I'm not into the patching process yet, but give me a couple of days,
and I'll try to get it fixed.
Alexander
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
>>
>> > What? What OS? There shouldn't be any 1 pixel border in
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> It's in the Linux-version.
You should have mentioned the platform.
You have an awful lot of work to get the Linux test_shell up to
Chromium speeds. There's a lot of raw Xlib calls to keep the image of
the page in video memory and to try
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> > What? What OS? There shouldn't be any 1 pixel border in our fullscreen
> > mode.
>
> It's in the Linux-version.
>
> In BrowserWindowGtk::InitWidgets() there’s this line:
>
> gtk_widget_set_size_request(toolbar_border_, -1, 1);
>
> I ch
> What? What OS? There shouldn't be any 1 pixel border in our fullscreen
> mode.
It's in the Linux-version.
In BrowserWindowGtk::InitWidgets() there’s this line:
gtk_widget_set_size_request(toolbar_border_, -1, 1);
I changed it into:
gtk_widget_set_size_request(toolbar_border_, -1, -1);
Th
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Marshall Greenblatt
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> test_shell being a test shell used mostly for non-interactive testing,
>> we haven't given a lot of concern to its perfomance AFAIK. I'm not
>> even sure how long of a lifespan
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/244003/show might be what you want.
I thought this was intentionally abandoned because it was growing out of
control. That's what I was alluding to before.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Teinum wrot
Whops, I'm saying sorry to Dirk and replying to Peter. Sorry to both of you. ;)
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
>> Why is that dirty? This is basically "kiosk mode", which other people have
>> asked for too. The last time, that ballooned into an enormous unwieldy
>> pa
> Why is that dirty? This is basically "kiosk mode", which other people have
> asked for too. The last time, that ballooned into an enormous unwieldy
> patch, but just adding a "--fullscreen" switch wouldn't be so bad.
Sorry Dirk, I could have said why I don't think it's an optimal solution.
I
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> Yes, I perceive the scolling, CSS scale-transformations on the
> iframes, and moving the iframes around as the biggest performance
> problems. All of these issues might be related to that?
You could try reading chrome/renderer/render_widg
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> test_shell being a test shell used mostly for non-interactive testing,
> we haven't given a lot of concern to its perfomance AFAIK. I'm not
> even sure how long of a lifespan it'll have since we aim to
> merge/replace it with WebKit's DumpRen
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> I could probably hack it so that it went into fullscreen, and then
> disable F11, but that's dirty. All the UI stuff from Chromium would
> still be there, although it would be hidden.
Why is that dirty? This is basically "kiosk mode", w
> Maybe star http://crbug.com/23145 to express your interest. That might
> motivate mhm to get this ready for checkin.
Done! :)
Alexander
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> Maybe star http://crbug.com/23145 to express your interest. That might
> motivate mhm to get this read
Maybe star http://crbug.com/23145 to express your interest. That might
motivate mhm to get this ready for checkin.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> This is exactly what i want. Thanks!
>
> I'll see if I can make it work.
>
>
> Alexander
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:51 P
> test_shell doesn't implement the fast painting for one. Is the
> scrolling performance the problem that you're seeing?
Yes, I perceive the scolling, CSS scale-transformations on the
iframes, and moving the iframes around as the biggest performance
problems. All of these issues might be related
http://codereview.chromium.org/244003/show might be what you want.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
>
> I could probably hack it so that it went into fullscreen, and then
> disable F11, but that's dirty. All the UI stuff from Chromium would
> still be there, although it wo
This is exactly what i want. Thanks!
I'll see if I can make it work.
Alexander
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/244003/show might be what you want.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
>>
>> I could probably hack it so
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Alexander Teinum wrote:
> I could probably hack it so that it went into fullscreen, and then
> disable F11, but that's dirty. All the UI stuff from Chromium would
> still be there, although it would be hidden.
test_shell doesn't implement the fast painting for one
test_shell being a test shell used mostly for non-interactive testing,
we haven't given a lot of concern to its perfomance AFAIK. I'm not
even sure how long of a lifespan it'll have since we aim to
merge/replace it with WebKit's DumpRenderTree at some point soon.
Is there some reason you're not j
I could probably hack it so that it went into fullscreen, and then
disable F11, but that's dirty. All the UI stuff from Chromium would
still be there, although it would be hidden.
Alexander
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> test_shell being a test shell used mostly for non-
26 matches
Mail list logo
