Fair enough-- it sounds like SharedScript could improve things in that sense. Though "shutting down the app" might now mean hunting down and closing all the tabs that have it open, if not restarting the browser. (To be honest, I'm not sure how many copies of Gmail I have open right now, but I tend to have a lot of windows and tabs.) :)
Charlie On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Michael Davidson <m...@google.com> wrote: > Truthfully, the current situation with Gmail tearoffs is way, way worse in > terms of versioning. We use the Closure Compiler for our JS, which means > that a tearoff window opened from the main window might not be able to get > necessary data from the main window! (Even for slow tearoffs we get some > data from the main window.) > > Gmail (and I'd imagine most sophisticated apps) has a notion of version > that the client understands. The situation with SharedScript would be > analogous to how Chrome auto-updates - you'd just have to shut the app down > to get the new version. > > We plan on mitigating this by using AppCache to preload new versions of the > script so that the reload is fast, but overall I don't think this is a big > problem. > > Michael > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Charles Reis <cr...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> One question about version conflicts and how they might get worse; sorry >> if it's already been addressed. What happens if a user has an old version >> of an application like Gmail open and then tries to open a new window to the >> app, after developers have added new features? I presume the new window is >> stuck talking to the old version of the SharedScript? >> >> Version conflicts are obviously already possible (without SharedScripts) >> if an old application opens a new window and tries to talk to it. Today, >> though, it's at least mostly safe to have a week-old copy of an app open and >> then load a separate, newer version in a different window. (I'm doing that >> right now with Gmail.) With SharedScripts in place, it seems like either >> (1) the new version of the app would have to detect the old SharedScript and >> deal with it or (2) the user would continue to see errors until he reloaded >> all the open app windows to get the new version. And would reloading be >> sufficient, or would he have to close all the app windows to make the >> SharedScript go away? >> >> Basically, SharedScripts make multiple windows more dependent on each >> other. There's a lot of benefits to that, though it could also make >> problems like version conflicts more common. Have there been any thoughts >> on ways to address this, or should it be left to web developers? (I didn't >> see anything in the design doc.) >> >> Charlie >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Michael Davidson <m...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A third improvement: When we adopt the HTML5 notification API for >>>> showing users new mail or incoming chat notifications we will only show one >>>> notification regardless of the number of Gmail tabs that are open. Today >>>> each window would have to show a notification. That one just occurred to >>>> me, >>>> I'm sure we can come up with others. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>> >>> FWIW, we've been pushing developers to use SharedWorkers to manage their >>> notifications for exactly this reason. It's fairly trivial to do so, since >>> notifications are fundamentally an async API anyway. But agreed that >>> SharedScript would also work for this. >>> >>> -atw >>> >>> >>>> >>>> - Maciej >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I sense that there's some pushback due to a Google property requesting >>>>> a feature that Google engineers are trying to get into the browser, but I >>>>> think that Gmail is emblematic of all large web apps. Shared workers have >>>>> their place, but that place is not sharing the UI code for large apps. >>>>> >>>>> I saw a comment that forcing multiple windows of one application into >>>>> the same process is undesirable. I disagree. Gmail is not a CPU-bound >>>>> application. We believe that the savings of having one JS heap, one >>>>> request >>>>> queue, one data store, etc. would outweigh the benefits of process >>>>> isolation. >>>>> >>>>> 3) Should SharedScript be added to WebKit? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not a WebKit developer, so I'm not as qualified to comment. >>>>> However, I believe that SharedScript is a feature that many apps would >>>>> use. >>>>> We tried to come up with a representative set of examples in the spec. >>>>> We're >>>>> happy to come up with more. I don't believe that SharedWorkers will solve >>>>> those scenarios. I doubt that developers inside or outside of Google will >>>>> move to a totally async programming model. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry that this initial mail is also a little scattered. I'll try to >>>>> stay on top of the conversation as it progresses, and will hopefully be >>>>> able >>>>> to provide a perspective from the trenches of web development. >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Following up, I think this highlights the distinct set of use cases >>>>>> that shared workers and shared script address: >>>>>> >>>>>> SharedWorkers are a great platform for when you have a single database >>>>>> that is shared across multiple instances of your web app, and you want to >>>>>> coordinate updates to that database. I can imagine sharing a single >>>>>> connection to the server, etc via SharedWorkers. >>>>>> >>>>>> SharedScripts are a good platform for when you want to share data/code >>>>>> (for example, the immense body of Javascript used to implement the Gmail >>>>>> UI) >>>>>> across multiple windows. I can't speak to whether passing a hidden iframe >>>>>> between windows as was suggested in the other thread would address this >>>>>> use >>>>>> case sufficiently. >>>>>> >>>>>> -atw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that the offline gmail team uses the Gears flavor of shared >>>>>>> workers and is planning to migrate to the HTML5 version once DB access >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> supported from within worker context in shipping browsers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I guess that Gmail would be a candidate app that has asked for >>>>>>> both. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -atw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak >>>>>>> <m...@apple.com>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Dmitry Titov wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think it's correct to say that SharedWorkers are not useful >>>>>>>>> and "we need a SharedScript instead". They are different things and >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> address different use cases. For example, SharedWorker is great to >>>>>>>>> make sure >>>>>>>>> there is only one 'app instance' running - exactly because it is >>>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>> inter-process, it can be used as a "inter-process synchronization >>>>>>>>> primitive" >>>>>>>>> to control how many app instances are opened. SharedScript is a >>>>>>>>> container >>>>>>>>> for data and code shared between pages that comprise a "web >>>>>>>>> application" and >>>>>>>>> normally run in the same process. As in native apps, whether or not >>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>> instances of the app can run at the same time depends on the author >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> app, and can be done either way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are there any Web apps at Google or elsewhere currently using >>>>>>>> SharedWorker? Would any of them still use it if they could switch to >>>>>>>> SharedScript? Has any app team specifically requested support for >>>>>>>> *both* >>>>>>>> SharedWorker *and* SharedScript? (Serious questions, since the >>>>>>>> justification >>>>>>>> for SharedScript is largely based on Web developer feedback.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note: if SharedScript was really globally shared it could be used to >>>>>>>> implement shared workers - simply have the SharedScript manage the >>>>>>>> per-app >>>>>>>> Workers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Maciej >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>>>>>>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>>>>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>>>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> webkit-dev mailing list >>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
