Re: [9fans] How would you go about implementing this in Plan9?

[Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1190 bytes --]

2010/12/10 Federico G. Benavento <benavento@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Eugene Gorodinsky
> <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's a lot more reasons for using one tab = one process approach. For
> > chrome it really is a bargain. But for a non-browsing application it
> might
> > not be so.
> >
>
> so the UI doesn't hang because webkit is single threaded, so you just
> fork()/exec() a binary
> and communicate via a named pipe?
>
> in any case, like chrome, which uses some sort of shared bitmap for a
> media player
> the player could create and image and share it via nameimage(), then the
> decoder
> program would just call namedimage() to get that one and draw to it...
> hell it could draw directly to the display with image id 0 if you want
> it, so really
>
> By sharing a bitmap, do you mean using shared memory between different
processes? I'm still not comfortable with having executables that can't do
anything on their own. Kind of pointless to have them if they can only work
when spawned by another process.


> for the im client a pipe is more than enough
>
Hmm... perhaps.

>

--
> Federico G. Benavento
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2064 bytes --]