4 ms·

>> We talked privately with particular Chrome folks before we started (as described upthread), in the middle, and shortly before landing to mention that we were

>> We talked privately with particular Chrome folks before we started (as described upthread), in the middle, and shortly before landing to mention that we were landing soon. > Yes, I'm aware of that, but the work had been underway for a long time and was about to be dropped by the time there was a real heads up. So the core of the architecture was already being frozen from a larger perspective. Are you aware of the earlier conversation that occurred before we wrote any lines of code or even had a name? Where we talked about the possibility of just using Chromium's model if Google was willing to contribute it back? I have mentioned it twice - maybe you overlooked those parts of my remarks. > Chromium's architecture was public and available, but we assumed it wasn't used because it didn't fit the needs of WebKit2. There's no malice in that. We designed Chromium from the beginning for SFI (as Adam tried to convey), and that incurs quite a bit of complexity. It had nothing to do with SFI (which wasn't brought up at the time) or complexity. It was for the reasons I stated upthread.

justinschuh 14y ago
>Are you aware of the earlier conversation that occurred before we wrote any lines of code or even had a name? Where we talked about the possibility of just using Chromium's model if Google was willing to contribute it back? I have mentioned it twice - maybe you overlooked those parts of my remarks. The Chromium code is all in a public repository and was already integrated into WebKit via Chrome's platform layer. Members of the Chrome team were also interested in helping better incorporate Chrome's model into WebKit. So, I must be misunderstanding you, because it seems like you're suggesting that you expected Chrome engineers to simply do all the work. >It had nothing to do with SFI (which wasn't brought up at the time) or complexity. It was for the reasons I stated upthread. I still don't get what that reason is supposed to be. Regardless, the resulting WebKit2 design was clearly incompatible with the existing Chrome architecture. And the fact that they were continuing to diverge and place a burden on both projects was a clear problem. This was raised repeatedly, but never seemed to receive any serious consideration.
- kyrias 14y ago
  > So, I must be misunderstanding you, because it seems like you're suggesting that > you expected Chrome engineers to simply do all the work. Nah, you're not misunderstanding, Apple/WebKit has a track record of doing this.
  - justinschuh 14y ago
    I expect that's not the case, and I'm just missing the point othermaciej is trying to make.
    - kyrias 14y ago
      Well it doesn't really matter if you expect it or not, the fact still stands that they do.
      - easp 14y ago
        Do you actually know what you pretend to know, or are you holding a grudge against Apple for an old transgression with KHTML that they've since done did a great deal of work to put right?
- terhechte 14y ago
  The way I read it, they didn't want to integrate until they got an official 'yes' (quote: 'our choices were to do a hostile fork of Chromium into the WebKit tree').
- othermaciej 14y ago
  My interest in this thread was only to report on some history that I knew about personally, to correct what I thought was an incomplete version of events. I think a bunch of people found that information useful and interesting. I regret that this thread has turned into such a back-and-forth. It's not my goal to detract from the Blink announcement. I feel like it would be rude to leave you hanging on mid-thread. However, I feel like: (a) You are trying to argue with my version of specific events where I was present in person and you (as far as I recall) were not. (b) You are trying to argue with my stated motivations for decisions that I was part of and you were not. (c) You seem to want to assign blame. Maybe my impressions are wrong. But given this, I find it hard to reply in a way that would be constructive and would not further escalate. I hope you will forgive me for not debating about it further.

justinschuh 14y ago

>Are you aware of the earlier conversation that occurred before we wrote any lines of code or even had a name? Where we talked about the possibility of just using Chromium's model if Google was willing to contribute it back? I have mentioned it twice - maybe you overlooked those parts of my remarks. The Chromium code is all in a public repository and was already integrated into WebKit via Chrome's platform layer. Members of the Chrome team were also interested in helping better incorporate Chrome's model into WebKit. So, I must be misunderstanding you, because it seems like you're suggesting that you expected Chrome engineers to simply do all the work. >It had nothing to do with SFI (which wasn't brought up at the time) or complexity. It was for the reasons I stated upthread. I still don't get what that reason is supposed to be. Regardless, the resulting WebKit2 design was clearly incompatible with the existing Chrome architecture. And the fact that they were continuing to diverge and place a burden on both projects was a clear problem. This was raised repeatedly, but never seemed to receive any serious consideration.

kyrias 14y ago
> So, I must be misunderstanding you, because it seems like you're suggesting that > you expected Chrome engineers to simply do all the work. Nah, you're not misunderstanding, Apple/WebKit has a track record of doing this.
- justinschuh 14y ago
  I expect that's not the case, and I'm just missing the point othermaciej is trying to make.
  - kyrias 14y ago
    Well it doesn't really matter if you expect it or not, the fact still stands that they do.
    - easp 14y ago
      Do you actually know what you pretend to know, or are you holding a grudge against Apple for an old transgression with KHTML that they've since done did a great deal of work to put right?
terhechte 14y ago
The way I read it, they didn't want to integrate until they got an official 'yes' (quote: 'our choices were to do a hostile fork of Chromium into the WebKit tree').
othermaciej 14y ago
My interest in this thread was only to report on some history that I knew about personally, to correct what I thought was an incomplete version of events. I think a bunch of people found that information useful and interesting. I regret that this thread has turned into such a back-and-forth. It's not my goal to detract from the Blink announcement. I feel like it would be rude to leave you hanging on mid-thread. However, I feel like: (a) You are trying to argue with my version of specific events where I was present in person and you (as far as I recall) were not. (b) You are trying to argue with my stated motivations for decisions that I was part of and you were not. (c) You seem to want to assign blame. Maybe my impressions are wrong. But given this, I find it hard to reply in a way that would be constructive and would not further escalate. I hope you will forgive me for not debating about it further.