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 08:46:39 GMT
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