Didn't see this before now, sorry. On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us> wrote: > On 10/14/2013 12:06 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: >> >> How common are the blocking API calls? > > Expect them to be very common or almost universal for "real" Flash. Much > less common for simple display ads. > >> Can we somehow predict whether >> the SWF will need that, and optionally use a worker/non-worker context >> based on that? > > Not effectively, no. SWF content can and very often does load "subcontent" > similar to iframes, so statically checking whether it imports > ExternalInterface won't give you a useful answer.
See my previousy message: there are even more reasons why this won't work. >> >> We can do whatever we like in Gecko, but I'd imagine that any proposal >> to allow blocking on a worker will meet significant resistance in the >> WG (which is, IMO, justified). > > > I'm primarily interested in solving the shumway use-case. However, once we > have implementation experience, I'm not convinced that blocking workers is > inherently a bad thing, and we should consider proposing it at that point. > Sites want to ship shumway to their own users (Flash on ipads) and it would > IMO be silly to require them to run on the main thread just to maintain the > purity of an entirely async worker design. I'm not convinced we can get a synch worker proposal accepted. If we attempt to do so, we should see if we can coordinate with the asm.js efforts. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
