On Tuesday 2013-02-12 20:17 -0800, Stephen Pohl wrote: > L. David Baron wrote: > >On Tuesday 2013-02-12 18:40 -0800, Asa Dotzler wrote: > >>doing something horribly wrong with memory. This is simply a > >>memory-expensive feature and it's a feature we *must* land. > >Why is it simply a memory-expensive feature? Why does it require > >any additional memory overhead at all, other than while an animation > >is happening?
> Currently, when navigating back/forward in the browser history, we > don't keep track of the rendered pages. So, without storing > snapshots of pages in history, we only have the current page to > animate. The previous/next pages would appear blank. But we store the pages themselves in the bfcache, and it seems like we ought to be able to paint them into the needed image (or other lower-level graphical buffer) right before we do the animation. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
