Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mmocny@google.com designates
 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mmocny@google.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOBL_k5D5rOzkgqsDH83LMpCOtBiGRymT1C=c7duv22w8nU8cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOBL_k7P90RH+M5L2wqOAciJBkYBMHiwqtGZXDzAE9GTqn_FOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEeF2TenGB0mP5yQG_gLbKWD1XOSz6OP9KZjzDs3fVBLAxcJcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOBL_k5D5rOzkgqsDH83LMpCOtBiGRymT1C=c7duv22w8nU8cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:43:42 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAEeF2TfXRmTBofTSiJDbqCpAFXfpzBKJ-wDf+N4CtFA9AG9+NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MozillaView update, bridge questions
To: dev <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4145fcc9fbd2050694251f

--047d7b4145fcc9fbd2050694251f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed Oct 29 2014 at 10:58:08 AM Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I don't have anything working yet for the new
> MozillaView,
> > > but because MozillaView is so radically different than any other view,
> > I've
> > > been forced to re-think some things with our current exec script in
> > > cordova.js, namely why we're still using a prompt-based solution for
> > > NativeToJS API in 2014.
> > >
> > > I know that the reason we currently do this is because Android 2.3
> sucks
> > > and addJavascriptInterface doesn't work in the Emulator, and since
> people
> > > only seem to test Android 2.3 in the emulator, we have to support this
> > for
> > > some reason.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking that since the performance, as well as rendering on
> Android
> > > 2.3.x is so sub-par, maybe we want to strongly recommend that people
> use
> > > MozillaView on 4.x and switch our bridge to do something else like poll
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean MozillaView on 2.3?  My concern here is that those devices
> may
> > only be on 512Mb ram and its hard to imagine an alternative webview
> running
> > well on that (since it loses opportunity to share system resources, it
> has
> > larger overheads than system webview).  That said, if FF browser app is
> > having success on 2.3 devices, perhaps this is no different.  Perhaps
> > mozilla folk have insights into FF browser app stats on 2.3 devices?
> >
> > Yeah, I meant 2.3. Is that what's keeping Chromium-based WebViews off
> 2.3?  I was hoping that KitKat and Lolipop would be killing off
> Gingerbread, since we're not talking about 11% of all users instead of 25%.
>

Not sure KK and L will kill 2.3, but perhaps Android One etc will (cheap
devices and 512 ram was previous motivation to continue shipping these old
versions).


>
>
>
> > > addJavascriptInterface and have the messages be sent back that way
> > > instead.  I don't know if there's additional drawbacks to this
> approach,
> > > which is why I'm asking here.
> > >
> > > Also, maybe it's time to re-think the encoding of the messages?  If we
> > can
> > > support moving JSON over the bridge we should do so instead of
> depending
> > on
> > > string encodings.  It's what's being done with Mozilla and I'm going to
> > > have to write the MozillaView as almost a separate platform and I'll
> have
> > > to override exec with it's stuff, since it's not a WebKit/Blink
> WebView,
> > > and instead has a sane way to pass stuff across. :P
> > >
> >
> > Last time I took a look at the bridge I asked the same question.
> Currently
> > encoding looks crazy at first glance.  Upon further inspection, it may be
> > difficult to compete on throughput with a more cleanly implementation,
> and
> > thats the reason for the ugly.  I'm all for an investigation into
> > improvements here, but we should start with benchmarks and an
> understanding
> > of what would be an acceptable regression (if any).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> >
>

--047d7b4145fcc9fbd2050694251f--