incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: why apache cordova keep Polling and XHR two ways to fetch data?
Date Fri, 11 May 2012 08:48:24 GMT
Bryce,

Last time I tried polling was actually faster than XHRs if you're sending
data back and forth at a very high frequency.

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:

> Android has a direct bridge JS <-> Java through addJavascriptInterface()
> which I believe is the fastest solution BUT WebSockets could be an
> interesting approach for iOS.
>
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Julien Bouquillon [revolunet] <
> julien@revolunet.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you take a look at how linkedin implemented the native to webview
>> bridge ?
>>
>> http://engineering.linkedin.com/mobile/linkedin-ipad-nativeweb-messaging-bridge-and-websockets
>>
>> They use a websocket which is must faster. This wont work on all androids
>> but could improve performance on new devices
>>
>> Julien
>>
>> 2012/5/11 Bryce Curtis <curtis.bryce@gmail.com>
>>
>> > I believe XHR is faster response on average and lower overhead than
>> > polling.  I would expect addJavascriptInterface to be faster than
>> > prompt.  If someone wants to write a test case for each, then we can
>> > try it ourselves and provide results to a wiki page to quantify it
>> > once and for all (or until the next Android version).
>> >
>> > My bet is that the optimal case would be to use loadUrl("javascript:")
>> > for Java->JS and addJavascriptInterface for JS->Java.  Of course the
>> > problem with loadUrl("javascript:") is that it steals focus - though I
>> > remember reading somewhere that someone implied they found a solution
>> > - don't know what it was.
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > I do however it's not exactly formalized. I just played around with it
>> > when
>> > > I was working on the couchdb plugin for android and did some testing.
>> I
>> > can
>> > > put something together though. I think the main issue is not if it is
>> > > faster or not but rather if it breaks on devices (other than the 2.3
>> > > emulator) which I seriously doubt.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Do you have proof that addJavascriptInterface is faster despite the
>> fact
>> > >> that we're not using WebView.loadUrl?  I seriously think we're
>> missing a
>> > >> large part of the picture if we don't account for that.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > I wonder how other frameworks get
>> > >> > > around this issue?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > They don't as it's a 2.3 emulator only issue.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > +1 for adding addJavascriptInterface back it's just 10x faster
for
>> > >> > everything other than simple operations (like taking a picture).
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Monday, May 7, 2012, Filip Maj wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Something to chalk up on the todo list: test all of
the Adobe
>> VAN
>> > +
>> > >> SF
>> > >> > > > office Androids with that app you put out.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > >We can bring addJavascriptInterface
>> > >> > > > >back, but I don't think it's going to magically
make things
>> > better.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Maybe we could do a benchmark between XHR, prompt and
>> > addJSInterace
>> > >> and
>> > >> > > > see which one has best performance. And this might sound
crazy
>> but
>> > >> > maybe
>> > >> > > > even open our methodology and numbers up ;)
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > --
>> > >> > > Simon Mac Donald
>> > >> > > http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message