Slashdot Mirror
WebKit2 API Layer Brings Split-Process Model
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Anders Carlsson and Sam Weinig over at Apple just announced WebKit2, a rework of the WebKit engine that powers Chrome and Safari. This new version of WebKit incorporates the same style of split-process model that provides stability in Chrome, but built directly into the framework so all browsers based upon WebKit will be able to gain the same level of sandboxing and stability. AppleInsider has a writeup, and the team has provided 'high level documentation' as well. Both Palm and the Epiphany team are going to be happy about this."
Each tab in its own 'sandbox' makes things more stable and more secure, which may give any browser built on it similar security as Chrome. Next year Safari & Mobile Safari may last an extra few hours in the 'hack-a-thon'.
Wouldn't it be easier to just mention by far the most popular products falling into general categories instead of two quite obscure ones?
Like...Nokia (they ship Webkit browser with S60, half of smartphone market, since forever; plus lately with mainstream "featurephone" S40) and Safari. Users of those should be pleased too, you know...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Is there an Electrolysis ETA for Firefox? I have a bad feeling that WebKit will get this out first. Firefox is sure getting slower and slower in tech advancement.
We already have it, it's called 'Facebook'.
I mean if Firefox starts using this model, I'll have 100 firefox.exe processes in the task manager and I don't want that. So, is there a way to run all of those processes inside a one big process? Well, other than using a full VM...
Don't let facts and history get in the way of your bias. Webkit was forked from KHTML by Apple in 2002 and named it Webkit. For a while KHTML developers backported Apple's features independently but have since worked closely with Apple incorporating Webkit features into KHTML. Apple released Webkit as open source in 2005. They are still active in maintaining and developing it. Specifically, some developers at Apple did the development and announced the changes on a dev forum:
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
typo: appropriate should be proprietary.
The next "big thing" will be some dipshit who writes an HTML rendering engine using nothing but JavaScript and HTML5 canvas.
Nope, canvas clearly isn't the right choice. If some dipshit were to seriously consider this, they'd use OpenGL.
Just because this is how the Web community does things, that JavaScript/HTML5/canvas browser will in turn get a new scripting language that's even shittier than JavaScript is.
First: Where's your evidence that this is how the Web community does things? I honestly can't remember the last time I wrote a scripting language within a scripting language in anything at all related to web development.
Second: What, exactly, is shitty about JavaScript? Most people who think JavaScript is shitty don't understand it. It's actually a very nice language, albeit with a few ugly quirks.
Soon it'll be hyped even more than Ruby on Rails, AJAX and Cloud Computing were.
Nope, because as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, each of those things actually has something of value to contribute to the world. You may not like Rails, but it did remind everyone that MVC is a Good Idea, and new Web frameworks generally include at least that concept. AJAX allows applications to run in the browser -- again, like it or not, that's something which has value. Cloud computing, in either sense -- whether you're talking about web apps keeping your data, or utility computing -- again have something to contribute.
What does your hypothetical browser contribute? It does the exact same thing as everything we have, only slower and shittier. (And before you claim that this is how web apps work, how, exactly, could I safely run an application without installing it before now? Again, it actually has some positive points, whether or not they're things you want -- your idea has none.)
Managers around the world will force their developers to rewrite all of their web sites and web apps to target this new shitty scripting language and browser.
I don't know any managers who have suggested something so stupid with the current generation.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The only proprietary thing required seems to be QuickTime (for H.264), looking at their build directions. Apple added Win32 rendering a while ago... And the network components are open source under CFLite.
https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/04/08/firefox-lorentz-beta-available-for-download-and-testing/
'Lorentz' - a beta version combining FF 3.6.3 with the out of process plugin feature, became available yesterday. This shoves the plugins into their own process, which is where the vast majority of problems occur. Give it a shot and report them bugs!
Did you ever use KHTML? It did a tiny fraction of what WebKit does, and most of the recent stuff (JavaScript implementation, all of the HTML5 support much of the CSS support) is from Apple. It's basically just the work of the KHTML devs in the same way that FreeBSD is basically just the work of those guys at UCB in the '80s.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Like GP said, WebKit is basically just the work of the KHTML devs. Apple leeched off of their work.
If by 'leeched' you mean they took an existing open project, modified and extended it, then released that work for free. I guess if you redefine leech then yes they leeched it.
While WebKit began from KHTML, since 2002, it's definitely been an Apple-driven innovation, and they contribute most to its existence.
Wow.
This script has been around nearly as long as slashdot itself. Congratulations to the author, if he's even still around.
Well first of all, since it makes no sense for me to reiterate them here: wtfjs
Secondly, Prototype-based OO is quite ugly. Sure, it's workable, and you can argue that it's the more pure way to do OO as it emphasizes object orientation and encapsulates better, however, any way you try to sugar coat it, Javascript makes it a lot uglier than it needs to be.
Thirdly, the fact that it's a defacto standardized language, a lot like the web itself was defacto'd into existence rather than people trying to follow standards (which came later), each implementation is different enough that what will work in one does not necessarily work in another. While this is a lot better today than it used to be, there are still places where this is really rough.
Still, you can point out flaws and inconsistencies in any language, but the web-related technologies tend to be a lot more, well let's call them "special" (just to make them feel better).
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If the KHTML devs don't want someone using their code then why did they license it the way they did? Why do people complain about companies using open source code and then making it better?
If I have a choice between Webkit and Chrome, I'd prefer Webkit to embed in applications. However, the graphics and network components of Apple's Windows port are appropriate, so Chrome is clearly the better choice, even after Apple has added this split process feature.
Chrome uses WebKit as its HTML renderer. Google essentially packaged a separate Webkit instance inside each tab.
This is just moving it down a level.
wtfjs [wtfjs.com]
Top post on that is a remark about how things behave weirdly when you redefine certain methods. That's true of other languages I like -- any language that supports operator overloading can create some really weird shit.
The more important question is why you would ever do that? Don't abuse the language, and it won't abuse you.
Next one is about numbers close to infinity. When would I ever see this?
And there is one that's an IE-specific bug. That's an IE bug, not a Javascript bug.
Again, these are interesting warts, but why would I care?
Secondly, Prototype-based OO is quite ugly. Sure, it's workable, and you can argue that it's the more pure way to do OO...
I can and do. I actually like it, because it's simpler, and I think it's far easier and cleaner to build a class-based system on top of prototype-based than the other way around.
any way you try to sugar coat it, Javascript makes it a lot uglier than it needs to be.
I don't think so. There are a few patterns in particular which work very well in Javascript, even elegantly. I certainly agree that it has room for improvement, but the fact that it's prototype-based is the last place I would look.
Thirdly, the fact that it's a defacto standardized language, a lot like the web itself was defacto'd into existence rather than people trying to follow standards (which came later), each implementation is different enough that what will work in one does not necessarily work in another.
There is, however, an official standard now. The differences seem to be largely at the API level, and that's something which can be handled in libraries.
Still, you can point out flaws and inconsistencies in any language, but the web-related technologies tend to be a lot more, well let's call them "special" (just to make them feel better).
Could be. I still don't think it justifies the "even shittier" comment. It's not hard to find many examples of languages shittier than JavaScript -- I'd start with, oh, Java.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
When he says JavaScript engine, he means that Apple wrote the entire javascript engine in WebKit. It happens that KHTML had a javascript engine that was much slower, much less stable, and much less supporting of modern javascript, but that doesn't change the fact that apple wrote *all* of WebKit's Javascript support as it stands. They also wrote most of it's CSS support, and most of it's HTML support (even for older standards).
To suggest that WebKit as it currently stands is the work of the KHTML devs is a bit of an enormous stretch, and probably falls into the rabid anti-apple fanboisim category. Try using a KHTML (from when apple grabbed it) browser, and a WebKit one, and then consider how much work apple have done.
Yes, they rolled their own Javascript engine for Safari 4, but based on the original engine with large improvements in speed. This is Nitro (or SquirrelFish, or SFX, or whatever it is being called right now).
They also did *massive* work on the CSS core to enable Safari (and Webkit itself) to pass Acid 2. So "working fine" before Apple "ripped it apart" to make it more standards compliant.
Apple have done a great deal of work on Webkit, not to diminish any of the work done by people on KHTML before that, but any charge that Apple haven't done much, or just rebadged it and called it done, or have negatively affected KHTML or Webkit is just a non starter.
You realise Chrome uses WebKit to render? WebKit is an engine, Chrome is a browser implemented using it.
think it's far easier and cleaner to build a class-based system on top of prototype-based
You really can't say things like that and then expect people to take you serious when you say "Don't abuse the language." Creating a classical framework on top of a prototypical language is clearly abusing the language. And I don't mean abusing as is "trying to get it to do something it was not originally designed for," I mean abusing as in "what goes on in prison when then guards are not looking." And this coming from someone that wrote one of the earlier classical frameworks for JS, before I realized that prototypical inheritance is, in my opinion, far superior.
Also you don't look like much of an advocate for a language when you refer to other languages ( specifically the number one... err... number two language in the world) as "shittier."
Though since rather addressed, there were grumbles early on that Apple weren't running the project in a co-operative way - they were abiding by the letter but not the spirit of the open source licensing. It's their right to do this but it used to upset people when Apple got credit for "contributing" when they were doing the bare minimum. But I think they reformed the WebKit project a lot and they're working rather in the open now, so I'm not sure that (generally) so much of this historical attitude remains at large.
They couldn't have done otherwise. KHTML was licensed under the LGPL.
Where was the word 'innovation' used?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, clearly, but I think the original assertion by the troll was that Apple took KHTML, changed the name to WebKit and put it in a browser and called it done and they they haven't done or contributed anything and that every new development is a KHTML-crafted change.
They also open sourced the other parts of Webkit that they wrote (under a BSD-style licence) to go with the GPL licensed bits.
They released big chunks of changes at once, especially in the early days, since they had been working on the fork for about a year before they made it public. They switched to a CVS model that made it easier, but there were also grumblings that some of the changes made it less KHTML-like (but that did help to make it more portable).
They also (not immediately) released the other parts of the engine that they wrote from scratch under a BSD licence to go with the GPL components.