Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to Implement: Replace Chromium IPC with Mojo IPC

Would you please clarify what will changed in more details? E.g., will current extension implementation process still valid? Are we also transferring JS IPC wrapper to Mojo IDL? Thanks! Xiang On 2015年03月06日 14:21, Han, Leon wrote: Description: Google is planning to replace all Chromium IPC

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] [Intent to implement] Better user experience on desktop

rship clearer. For example, when we uninstall an app, its working data(like cookies, local storage, scheduled tasks, sync) will be deleted too. Without uninstallation if we removed a package file, we still need work out new policy to retire its working data. Regards, Xiang On 2014年09月04日

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] [Intent to remove] Remove main document support

Hi Cici, For the main document /event system tests part, I think you can remove all of them in the list. And test for app.runtime.getMainDocument API can also be removed. Thanks, Xiang From: Crosswalk-dev [mailto:crosswalk-dev-boun...@lists.crosswalk-project.org] On Behalf Of Li, Cici X Sent

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Crosswalk Shared Browser Process

usage in the VM. Thanks, Xiang > -Original Message- > From: Pozdnyakov, Mikhail > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 7:45 PM > To: Santos, Thiago; Long, Xiang; crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org > Subject: RE: [Crosswalk-dev] Crosswalk Shared Browser Process > > H

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Crosswalk Shared Browser Process

I did a test with all the 8 apps mentioned in your wiki, and here's my result: 1. ./xwalk --single-process --disable-extension-process app_id Private + Shared = RAM usedProgram 274.6 MiB + 91.1 MiB = 365.8 MiB xwalk (8) = 2. ./xwalk app_id 303.1

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

forbid malicious access in xwalk-daemon. Regards, Xiang From: Crosswalk-dev [mailto:crosswalk-dev-boun...@lists.crosswalk-project.org] On Behalf Of Baptiste Durand Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:46 AM To: Poussa, Sakari Cc: Le Foll, Dominique; crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org Subject

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

d in cmdline, which also means the >communication between AMD will happens between RP and AMD, and the security >model will break too. Maybe Bai can provide more details on why we choose DBus instead of socket on the design :) Thanks, Xiang From: Baptiste Durand [mailto:baptiste.dur...

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

PygM98utBv-tB3I/edit# Thanks, Long Xiang > -Original Message- > From: Poussa, Sakari > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:02 PM > To: Long, Xiang; Barbieri, Gustavo; Pozdnyakov, Mikhail; Kenneth Rohde > Christiansen; Oliveira, Caio > Cc: crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswa

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

vents, and etc. Should we implement them anyway? 3. Do you know will there big change for the Tizen app core framework(like AUL, window management), and app control for Tizen 3.0? If this's true, then I'm totally agree to hold the app control part implementation ATM. Thanks, Xiang > ---

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

Thanks for the comments, I have updated the doc. A new implementation plan section is created, and I copied some background info from the previous doc for reference. Thanks, Xiang > -Original Message- > From: Barbieri, Gustavo > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:16 PM > To

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

Hi Kenneth, Caio, Are you OK with the current approach(https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1ne_SKZhxVPI9fXgWDeqJkGkekUpDy2if_4vK8fNXy5s/edit#)? Think it's quite straightforward now, and some details can be discussed in the PR later on. Thanks,

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

The Intel account seems only have below doc visibility options: Intel; People at Intel with the link; Shared privately. I'll use my gmail account next time :) Xiang > -Original Message- > From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen [mailto:kenneth.christian...@gmail.com] > Sent: Frid

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

Seems it allows comments already. Would you please try again? As the doc is created by Intel account, so only people at Intel with the link can comment. Thanks, Xiang > -Original Message- > From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen [mailto:kenneth.christian...@gmail.com] > Sent:

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

/edit# Please help to review it. Thanks, Xiang > -Original Message- > From: Oliveira, Caio > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:05 AM > To: Barbieri, Gustavo > Cc: crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org; Long, Xiang > Subject: Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement:

Re: [Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

behavior will not be aligned. - For testing, app samples and xwlak-launcher messages, I think I can provide them when we got the consensus on the above question :) > -Original Message- > From: Oliveira, Caio > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:31 AM > To: Long, Xiang

[Crosswalk-dev] Intent to implement: [Tizen] Application API

<---> xwalk-daemon <---> app-extension-process Long term plan: AppContext support. For details please check the design doc: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1n08dzcl3fawRW2Eccg95TC6DApe6RoAdUDqaZwNM8dI/edit# Regards, Long Xiang __