Bug 71270 - [chromium] Experiment in <canvas>.toBlob
: [chromium] Experiment in <canvas>.toBlob
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
: WebKit
Canvas
: 528+ (Nightly build)
: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assigned To:
:
:
:
:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-11-01 00:39 PST by
Modified: 2013-04-08 15:23 PST (History)


Attachments
Experiment uno: multiple threads. (26.03 KB, patch)
2011-11-01 00:42 PST, noel gordon
no flags Review Patch | Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Experiment due: sequential workqueue. (27.27 KB, patch)
2011-11-01 01:20 PST, noel gordon
no flags Review Patch | Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Patch: sequential workqueue. (22.61 KB, patch)
2011-12-19 06:02 PST, noel gordon
no flags Review Patch | Details | Formatted Diff | Diff


Note

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Description From 2011-11-01 00:39:46 PST
Experiments with <canvas>.toBlob
------- Comment #1 From 2011-11-01 00:42:51 PST -------
Created an attachment (id=113139) [details]
Experiment uno: multiple threads.
------- Comment #2 From 2011-11-01 01:20:50 PST -------
Created an attachment (id=113142) [details]
Experiment due: sequential workqueue.
------- Comment #3 From 2011-12-19 05:56:45 PST -------
I prefer the sequential workqueue approach, it simpler to reason about and provides good sequential performance with no thread contention unlike the "experiment uno".

Parts of "experiment due" dealt with the mimeType detection changes in HTMLCanvasElement.cpp and changes to the toDataURL() area of ImageBufferSkia.cpp.  These made the patch harder to read.  I cut them out and submitted them separately to focus the patch on the toBlob() idea.  FIXME notes suggest the changes needed to the toBlob() spec prose.
------- Comment #4 From 2011-12-19 06:02:53 PST -------
Created an attachment (id=119856) [details]
Patch: sequential workqueue.
------- Comment #5 From 2012-02-22 17:33:23 PST -------
How is this related to bug 51652?
------- Comment #6 From 2012-07-30 10:40:41 PST -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=119856) [details] [details]
> Patch: sequential workqueue.

Is this patch for review? Are you still working on this bug? Thanks.