I have no immediate objection to removing the shared iframe feature since, as you say, it's a source of problems, very few apps use it, and no apps require it. It's great that we did this feature through a pre-existing web technology, so we discovered its problems, and can now remove it, without creating a huge API surface area burden along the way.
> On a contrary, 'shared application state' could be a good idea, however this > particular way to implement it unfortunately is very difficult to get right. > There are no Google applications that use this feature currently, and there > is understanding of the costs involved. There is a possibility that some > other idea can both address the potential need and be reliably implementable > at the same time. Workers, for example, are a good case of limiting the > surface that also limits design/maintenance costs. Perhaps something similar > can be proposed for shared state. However, there was a discussion in Chromium > and it appears that ongoing design and maintenance of magic iframe is not > worth the benefit the feature provides for the applications. This doesn't sound so good to me. The main problem you identified with shared iframes -- the fact that permissions and live objects are typically associated with a single top-level page, and can get confused in the context of sharing between pages -- sounds like a problem with sharing, and not a problem with iframes as the mechanism for sharing. I don't support "Sharing is hard and nobody uses it, therefore let's add sharing through workers". Geoff _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
