upcoming electrolysis plans
dmose at mozillamessaging.com
Wed Jul 21 20:18:46 UTC 2010
There had been some concern that upcoming electrolysis changes
happening in Gecko-land might effect Thunderbird in a major way sooner
rather than later. I spent some time chatting with bsmedberg, and it
appears that there is nothing too imminent that we need to be concerned
With permission, I've included the IRC log of that chat with this message.
I've sent email to Benjamin as he requested, so hopefully we'll see some
updated docs about this before too long. If people are interested in
more detail (eg having a call) after those docs come out, please let me
[12:35pm] dmose: over in tb-land, we're trying to get a better
understanding of what the core electrolysis work is going to mean for
[12:35pm] dmose: and in particular what sorts of changes we're going to
need in order to keep working
[12:35pm] dmose: as gecko evolves
[12:35pm] dmose: are there any docs or web pages that would give us
[12:35pm] bsmedberg: In terms of the main *content processes* effort, I
wouldn't worry about it yet.
[12:36pm] bsmedberg: Dolske doesn't even know how it will affect Firefox.
[12:36pm] bsmedberg: Multi-process jetpack is coming soon.
[12:36pm] bsmedberg: Or at least the ability to have jetpacks run in a
[12:36pm] bsmedberg: And we are going to be requiring libxul, or at
least a static libxul-like linking configuration.
[12:37pm] dmose: yeah, i think standard8 is hoping to get something
libxul-like in the next several weeks
[12:38pm] dmose: my second-hand understanding is that mobile is already
refactoring lots of its front-end stuff, which i assume (correctly?), is
related to the content-process work.
[12:40pm] bsmedberg: yes
[12:40pm] bsmedberg: Fennec is shipping a content process in Fennec 2
(October, mozilla 2.0 timeframe)
[12:40pm] bsmedberg: Firefox isn't, not until Firefox 5 next year.
[12:40pm] dmose: ah, ok
[12:41pm] dmose: and are there current plans for any content-process
related changes that we would be _required_ to deal with?
[12:42pm] bsmedberg: Probably not in the 6-12 month timeframe, no.
[12:43pm] dmose: meaning that such changes could come as early as 6
months from now, but perhaps as late as 12 months?
[12:43pm] bsmedberg: Well, we can't even think about removing support
for in-process browsers.
[12:43pm] bsmedberg: Until Firefox ships with content-process browsers.
[12:44pm] bsmedberg: After that, there are engineering decisions about
whether supporting in-process browsers is holding us back somehow.
[12:44pm] bsmedberg: And I can't predict that far in the future.
[12:45pm] dmose: so if i'm understanding correctly, it's entirely
possible that supporting in-process browsers could last indefinitely?
[12:45pm] bsmedberg: Yes.
[12:46pm] bsmedberg: There are various things which will probably move
to other threads or processes, like compositing.
[12:46pm] bsmedberg: But that shouldn't affect you, as long as you're
building with --enable-ipc
[12:46pm] dmose: good to know
[12:46pm] bsmedberg: That will be required sooner, rather than later,
which is where the libxul requirement comes from.
[12:46pm] dmose: ok, makes sense
[12:47pm] dmose: the high-level thing here is that i'm trying to figure
out whether it makes sense to have a phone call sometime soon with you
and some of the main mail hackers
[12:47pm] dmose: and my impression from this conversation is that it's
not urgent, which i had been concerned that it might be
[12:47pm] bsmedberg: Yeah, it's not urgent.
[12:47pm] dmose: that said, i suspect it could still be valuable
[12:47pm] dmose: is that something you'd be up for sometime in the
[12:48pm] bsmedberg: I feel like I want to, and I feel like I don't.
[12:48pm] • dmose chuckles
[12:48pm] dmose: can you unpack that a bit?
[12:48pm] bsmedberg: If there are specific concerns, I think an email
exchange would work better.
[12:49pm] bsmedberg: If people just want to get a 'feeling' for what's
going on, I guess a phone call might work better.
[12:49pm] dmose: i think it's more the latter
[12:49pm] bsmedberg: I think it might be a lot of me going "I don't
know" over and over again
[12:49pm] dmose: heh
[12:49pm] dmose: well, in that case, it would be a short call!
[12:49pm] dmose: alternately, are there docs describing the basic
current plans that people could look at?
[12:50pm] bsmedberg: Hrm, there are some very out-of-date ones, and
crumbs that we've been dropping in the platform meeting.
[12:50pm] bsmedberg: Send me an email to remind me, and I can update the
e10s planning pages to make them fairly current and accurate.
[12:51pm] dmose: ok, will do
[12:51pm] dmose: in the mean time, are you ok with me posting this IRC
log somewhere public and mailing it to tb-planning?
[12:51pm] dmose: perhaps lightly edited
[12:52pm] bsmedberg: yes
[12:52pm] dmose: great; thanks much!
More information about the tb-planning