894863 - Allow frameworkers to spawn sub workers

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Firefox Graveyard :: SocialAPI, defect)

Description

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

Attachment: Patch

Real workers are allowed to create subworkers, so it makes sense for workers of SocialAPI providers to be allowed to do that too.
Exposing the 'Worker' constructor from the hidden frame used for the frameworker is easy, but doesn't let subworkers use WebSocket, which is very unfortunate for Talkilla service providers.
Getting bug 504553 fixed seems the best long term solution to address this, but it looks like it will take a while.
A short term solution that is being considered is to allow frameworkers to spawn subframeworkers. I started experimenting with this to check feasibility, so I'm filing a bug to attach my work in progress. We may end up wontfixing if we decide we want to follow a different path.

Feedback welcome :).

Comment 1

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

Attachment: Patch v2

This new patch follows the same approach as attachment 777057 [details] [diff] [review] but is now based on the set of patches in bug 891218.

It also includes a test based on the test in bug 896860.

If I understood correctly there was a discussion yesterday that resulted in preferring real workers for sub workers (ie bug 896860). I wasn't part of the discussion so I don't know the rationale, but I assume it's because that solution seemed less risky.  I'm afraid the risks of the 'subframeworker approach' may have been evaluated to "unknown", and looking at a real patch may give a different estimate, so I finished this patch (I had already started updating it) and I don't find it very intrusive. So unless there's something I missed (please let me know what :-)), I think we should still consider exposing WebSocket to subworkers.

Comment 2

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

Comment on attachment 779772 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v2

I've spoken to Mark and Shane about this. I really don't want to further expose FrameWorkers. We're trying to move in the opposite direction and kill FrameWorkers entirely. It sounds like there are suitable alternatives (bug 896860 or bug 896860 comment 3), so let's not go this route.

Comment 3

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

(In reply to :Gavin Sharp (use [e-mail] for email) from comment #2)

> It sounds like there are suitable alternatives (bug
> 896860 or bug 896860 comment 3)

This comment explains how things can work in a non-SocialAPI context (ie. Chrome). It's not a replacement for WebSocket in subworkers.

Comment 4

[Mark Hammond [:markh] [:mhammond]]

(In reply to Florian Quèze [:florian] [:flo] from comment #3)

> It's not a replacement for WebSocket in subworkers.

Agreed - but WebSockets in subworkers is bug 504553