Re: Proposal: move content JS interpretation to a background thread

2012-11-09 Thread Ted Mielczarek
On 11/9/2012 8:26 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > AFAIK, the major reason why we did abandon doing that was because moving > all our interaction with the content to be async was too much work for > the moment. Isn't that same work required for what you propose?\ No. AIUI, the reason we abandoned electr

Re: Proposal: move content JS interpretation to a background thread

2012-11-09 Thread Robert Kaiser
Honza Bambas schrieb: Few reasons: - I really don't believe we will soon/ever have a good OOP Firefox implementation AFAIK, the major reason why we did abandon doing that was because moving all our interaction with the content to be async was too much work for the moment. Isn't that same work

Re: Proposal: move content JS interpretation to a background thread

2012-11-08 Thread Honza Bambas
On 11/8/2012 10:19 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Honza Bambas wrote: Few reasons: - I really don't believe we will soon/ever have a good OOP Firefox implementation - content JS execution very often kills my Firefox UI (and it is not I/O that blocks) - sync APIs like loca

Re: Proposal: move content JS interpretation to a background thread

2012-11-08 Thread Kyle Huey
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Honza Bambas wrote: > Few reasons: > - I really don't believe we will soon/ever have a good OOP Firefox > implementation > - content JS execution very often kills my Firefox UI (and it is not I/O > that blocks) > - sync APIs like localStorage would not block the UI