Hi everyone,
A long standing issue in AIR has been the inclusion of an older version of WebKit. The request to update this library has come up many times in the forum and is in the top 10 on the community driven Uplist feature page. As with the recent and ongoing physics discussion, we're not committing to any changes purposed below at this time, as we're purely in an investigation mode at this time. We realize that this is an important feature and we need further clarification on what you're looking for. Please read on for questions from our development team.
We are exploring updating WebKit, but due to our modification of the WebKit source, this will be difficult, and updating WebKit will change the HTML DOM, possibly breaking content authored for our existing DOM.
So we are also exploring leaving HTMLLoader alone, for now, but providing a reasonable alternative.
StageWebView was originally written as a replacement for HTMLLoader on mobile (because we could not use our WebKit on mobile, StageWebView took advantage of the browser provided by the platform).
But it was extended to the desktop as an unsuccessful solution to this problem.
On mobile, content was probably newly written (so it could be tested with StageWebView), and the browsers were similar enough to our WebKit that the DOM impact was minor.
But on the desktop, forcing older content written for our WebKit to run on Internet Explorer 8 (as an example) was a disaster due to the differences in the DOM’s. We resolved this by making HTMLLoader versus StageWebView on the desktop a choice.
Which gets to the questions (for desktop development only).
Which is more attractive, an embedded web browser or using the system browser? Is it valuable to provide both?
For instance, using the native browser can save on code size (perhaps 6 MB), but you must create and test portable HTML, and you face the risk that future updates to the system browser breaks your content.
How much interop do you need between AS and JS?
Hearsay suggests another problem with StageWebView is there is no interop between ActionScript and JavaScript, whereas HTMLLoader had a lot of support.
Would StageWebView be sufficient if it exposed an ExternalInterface, or sandbox bridge, level of functionality? For instance, if AS could register a list of functions which could be called from JS (and vice versa), would that be enough? Or is there something else that HTMLLoader does that is essential?
For instance, one of the ideas being explored is to provide an entirely new class (perhaps as an ANE) which links an unmodified version of the latest WebKit source as a static library. By using unmodified source, we can more readily update to newer versions of WebKit. As well, if we leave the existing classes unchanged, we don’t risk breaking existing content. But if we use unmodified WebKit source, we may find some of HTMLLoader’s functionality impossible to match, which is why I’m interested in understanding the essential functionality, so we can decide if a sufficient, minimal (so it’s easier to support without customizing Webkit) interface for it.
Thanks,
Chris
155
Replies
AdChoices