Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of ProposedWebInspectorRearchitecting
- Timestamp:
- Sep 11, 2008 10:45:36 AM (16 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
ProposedWebInspectorRearchitecting
v2 v3 5 5 The long-term goal is to have a well-defined API that speaks JSON between the Inspector's JS and the underlying representation of the page. At first, that underlying representation of the page will be written entirely in JS and access the inspected page's DOM directly. Eventually, we can start moving appropriate bits to C++, or in Chromium's case IPC, as necessary. 6 6 7 The eventual stack will look something like this: 8 9 Inspector JS 10 ----------------------------- 11 API Shim JS 12 ----------------------------- 13 InspectorController C++ Give this a generic client (InspectorControllerClient?) that Chromium can implement as IPC. 14 ----------------------------- 15 Possibly an IPC layer 16 ----------------------------- 17 C++ Receives calls from the InspectorControllerClient 18 ----------------------------- 19 Inspected Page's JS 20 7 21 = APIs to implement = 8 22 We'll put all these as objects on the InspectorController. 9 23 10 24 == Console == 25 11 26 InspectorController.Console 12 27 13 28 == Profiler == 14 InspectorController.Profiler 29 30 InspectorController.Profiler.? 15 31 16 32 == Resources == 17 InspectorController.Resources 33 34 InspectorController.Resources.? 18 35 19 36 == DOM == 37 20 38 InspectorController.DOM.getChildren(node) 39 21 40 InspectorController.DOM.getParent(node) 22 41 23 node here is a JS object that has a one-to-one mapping with the DOM node in the page. E 42 node here is a JS object that has a one-to-one mapping with the DOM node in the page. Everything above this API layer only knows about the node JS object. Somewhere in the implementation of the API there needs to be a mapping. Initially, it can just be an in JS map. Eventually, the map will probably move to C++, at the very least it will for the IPC-based version. 43 24 44 == Database == 45 46 InspectorController.Database.getCurrentStack() ? 47 48 InspectorConteoller.Database.? 49 25 50 == Debugger == 26 51 52 InspectorController.Debugger.? 53 27 54 == Miscellaneous other notes == 55 56 Objects viewed in the console should be snapshots (i.e. not live). In addition to matching user expectations better, this means we don't need to worry about objects on the page getting GCed. Similarly, any live objects in the debugger should not be GCable. 57 58 For making sure the inspector has zero impact on page load times and minimal impact on memory usage we agreed on a few UI changes. Network monitoring and possibly debugging should be opt-in per-site. The console should only keep around XXX messages unless the user opts-in to keep more (all?) messages for that site. Currently, Chromium has XXX==100, but that was a relatively arbitrary decision. As a side note, the Chromium/V8 debugger is already zero cost until a debug statement is actually hit, so Chromium doesn't actually care about the debugger being opt-in.
