On 10/24/12 7:04 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
Couldn't we replace the original with a proxy that forwards to the new
object?
For access from JS that's exactly what we'll do.
The question is what happens for access from Rust.
-Boris
___
dev-servo mai
On 10/24/2012 4:04 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> Do we have a plan for adoptNode? If we're allocating nodes out of the JS
>> heap, presumably we'll need to brain-transplant the JSObject and then copy
>> over the implementation into the
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Do we have a plan for adoptNode? If we're allocating nodes out of the JS
> heap, presumably we'll need to brain-transplant the JSObject and then copy
> over the implementation into the new compartment... and make sure we update
> any pointe
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
> It seems to me that Google Chrome would have the same problems here,
> since it runs different origins in different processes.
>
AFAIK, in Chrome, if two JS documents can reference each other's heaps, it
puts them in the same process, eve
4 matches
Mail list logo
