CWebBrowser - Revision history

FileEX at 05:41, 9 July 2024

2024-07-09T05:41:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:41, 9 July 2024
Line 116:		Line 116:
	** Possible solution: Don't implement ''executeBrowserJavascript'' and introduce a "web" flag in the ''meta.xml'' file. If this flag is set, ''fileOpen'' will only work in read-only mode. (You'll have to set the web flag then in order to be able to open the website via ''loadBrowserURL'').		** Possible solution: Don't implement ''executeBrowserJavascript'' and introduce a "web" flag in the ''meta.xml'' file. If this flag is set, ''fileOpen'' will only work in read-only mode. (You'll have to set the web flag then in order to be able to open the website via ''loadBrowserURL'').
	Negative: Less possibilities --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 11:16, 09 May 2014 (UTC)		Negative: Less possibilities --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 11:16, 09 May 2014 (UTC)

			[[Category:Archived]]

Tracer: Undo revision 77682 by Tracer (talk)

2023-09-28T05:15:59Z

Undo revision 77682 by Tracer (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 28 September 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Client ~~function~~}}		{{Client devclass}}
	=Potential issues with implementation of CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework)=		=Potential issues with implementation of CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework)=
	This page discusses the issues when implementing an in-game web browser. Some of these need to be resolved before it's safe to include in MTA. The full discussion is here: http://pastebin.com/m5sqTRqH		This page discusses the issues when implementing an in-game web browser. Some of these need to be resolved before it's safe to include in MTA. The full discussion is here: http://pastebin.com/m5sqTRqH

Tracer: Not using useless template anymore

2023-09-28T05:15:37Z

Not using useless template anymore

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 28 September 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Client ~~devclass~~}}		{{Client function}}
	=Potential issues with implementation of CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework)=		=Potential issues with implementation of CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework)=
	This page discusses the issues when implementing an in-game web browser. Some of these need to be resolved before it's safe to include in MTA. The full discussion is here: http://pastebin.com/m5sqTRqH		This page discusses the issues when implementing an in-game web browser. Some of these need to be resolved before it's safe to include in MTA. The full discussion is here: http://pastebin.com/m5sqTRqH

Qaisjp: add category

2015-08-25T21:55:49Z

add category

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 25 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Client devclass}}
	=Potential issues with implementation of CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework)=		=Potential issues with implementation of CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework)=
	This page discusses the issues when implementing an in-game web browser. Some of these need to be resolved before it's safe to include in MTA. The full discussion is here: http://pastebin.com/m5sqTRqH		This page discusses the issues when implementing an in-game web browser. Some of these need to be resolved before it's safe to include in MTA. The full discussion is here: http://pastebin.com/m5sqTRqH

Jusonex at 12:46, 26 August 2014

2014-08-26T12:46:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 26 August 2014
Line 16:		Line 16:
	\|<span style="color:red;">'''Frequent updates'''</span>		\|<span style="color:red;">'''Frequent updates'''</span>
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~'''~~Well implemented multi-process design~~'''~~		\|Well implemented multi-process design
	\|Due to a bad implementation we are probably forced to run CEF in the main process (gta_sa.exe)		\|<s>Due to a bad implementation we are probably forced to run CEF in the main process (gta_sa.exe)</s> Since a few months also well implemented multi-process design
	\|-		\|-
	\|Less CPU usage		\|Less CPU usage
	\|~~Higher~~ CPU usage - ~~'''Re-check this!'''~~		\|A bit higher CPU usage, but better multi-threading
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Small DLLs and static libraries (~19MB extra size)'''		\|'''Small DLLs and static libraries (~19MB extra size)'''
Line 37:		Line 37:
	* I fear that Awesomium updates are and will be very infrequent. Since this is very bad in terms of security, we should ponder on moving back to CEF. CEF also introduced a separate executeable-mode (https://code.google.com/p/chromiumembedded/wiki/GeneralUsage#Separate_Sub-Process_Executable) which might solve the problem stated below. --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 11:39, 19 August 2014 (CET)		* I fear that Awesomium updates are and will be very infrequent. Since this is very bad in terms of security, we should ponder on moving back to CEF. CEF also introduced a separate executeable-mode (https://code.google.com/p/chromiumembedded/wiki/GeneralUsage#Separate_Sub-Process_Executable) which might solve the problem stated below. --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 11:39, 19 August 2014 (CET)

	== Problems with CEF ==		== <s>Problems with CEF</s> ==
	CEF implements Chromium's multi-process architecture by "cloning" the application's main process and running ''CefExecuteProcess'' which blocks the process while executing all the stuff (i.e. audio, rendering etc.). The behaviour leads to '''big issues''' in case of gta_sa.exe: ''CefExecuteProcess'' has to be called from ''WinMain''. Since we can't inject a DLL at this time easily, we have to patch GTA either in memory or on the harddisk (which is too crap).		<span style='color: red;'>'''Problems were solved in a newer CEF revision'''</span>

			<s>CEF implements Chromium's multi-process architecture by "cloning" the application's main process and running ''CefExecuteProcess'' which blocks the process while executing all the stuff (i.e. audio, rendering etc.). The behaviour leads to '''big issues''' in case of gta_sa.exe: ''CefExecuteProcess'' has to be called from ''WinMain''. Since we can't inject a DLL at this time easily, we have to patch GTA either in memory or on the harddisk (which is too crap).
	As an alternative, CEF provides a setting in order to run it in single-process mode. However this is a bad solution for two reason:		As an alternative, CEF provides a setting in order to run it in single-process mode. However this is a bad solution for two reason:
	* Performance and stability (We can't use more than 2GB memory without the LargeAddressAware flag; if GTA uses up to 1GB and CEF as well, we'll run into trouble). Additionally, we can't react to crashes properly		* Performance and stability (We can't use more than 2GB memory without the LargeAddressAware flag; if GTA uses up to 1GB and CEF as well, we'll run into trouble). Additionally, we can't react to crashes properly
	* Quotation from CEF's developer (- ''yeah, CEF's team consists of only 1 developer''): "Single process mode is intended as a development/debugging tool and is not recommended for production use. There are many potential bugs and stability issues related to use of single process mode. You should strongly consider making your application work in multi process mode." (Source: [http://magpcss.org/ceforum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3427#p6950])		* Quotation from CEF's developer (- ''yeah, CEF's team consists of only 1 developer''): "Single process mode is intended as a development/debugging tool and is not recommended for production use. There are many potential bugs and stability issues related to use of single process mode. You should strongly consider making your application work in multi process mode." (Source: [http://magpcss.org/ceforum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3427#p6950])</s>

	== Flash ==		== Flash ==

Jusonex at 09:39, 19 August 2014

2014-08-19T09:39:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 19 August 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|'''Open source'''		\|'''Open source'''
	\|-		\|-
	\|Frequent updates		\|<s>Frequent</s> Infrequent updates
	\|~~Also frequent~~ updates		\|<span style="color:red;">'''Frequent updates'''</span>
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Well implemented multi-process design'''		\|'''Well implemented multi-process design'''
Line 20:		Line 20:
	\|-		\|-
	\|Less CPU usage		\|Less CPU usage
	\|Higher CPU usage		\|Higher CPU usage - '''Re-check this!'''
	\|-		\|-
	\|Small DLLs and static libraries (~19MB extra size)		\|'''Small DLLs and static libraries (~19MB extra size)'''
	\|Larger DLLs and static libraries		\|Larger DLLs and static libraries
			\|-
			\|Less features
			\|'''More features'''
	\|}		\|}

Line 30:		Line 33:

	Verdict 2: Go with Awesomium since CEF doesn't match our requirements (as described below).		Verdict 2: Go with Awesomium since CEF doesn't match our requirements (as described below).

			Verdict 3:
			* I fear that Awesomium updates are and will be very infrequent. Since this is very bad in terms of security, we should ponder on moving back to CEF. CEF also introduced a separate executeable-mode (https://code.google.com/p/chromiumembedded/wiki/GeneralUsage#Separate_Sub-Process_Executable) which might solve the problem stated below. --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 11:39, 19 August 2014 (CET)

	== Problems with CEF ==		== Problems with CEF ==

Jusonex at 11:23, 9 May 2014

2014-05-09T11:23:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 9 May 2014
Line 45:		Line 45:
	*** A scripting function to set the user agent of the session		*** A scripting function to set the user agent of the session
	*** Some sample scripts, or some nagging to make sure the community uses HTML5 wherever possible, by the use of user agent or otherwise. We should try and make server owners responsible to avoid taking the lazy route (flash streaming)		*** Some sample scripts, or some nagging to make sure the community uses HTML5 wherever possible, by the use of user agent or otherwise. We should try and make server owners responsible to avoid taking the lazy route (flash streaming)
	* Note: http://www.permadi.com/tutorial/flashjscommand/ (limited way of communication) - thanks to [[User::Cazomino05]]		* Note: http://www.permadi.com/tutorial/flashjscommand/ (limited way of communication) - thanks to [[User:Cazomino05\|Cazomino05]]

	== HTTP Auth ==		== HTTP Auth ==
Line 101:		Line 101:
	** Solution: Educate - Window on entry explaining the insecurities of putting personal details into a website and a reminder in edit boxes --[[User:Cazomino05\|Cazomino05]] 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)		** Solution: Educate - Window on entry explaining the insecurities of putting personal details into a website and a reminder in edit boxes --[[User:Cazomino05\|Cazomino05]] 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
	*** reminder should be a string in all edit fields depending on if it's remote or local saying something like Insecure to remind people not to put those details in. --[[User:Cazomino05\|Cazomino05]] 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)		*** reminder should be a string in all edit fields depending on if it's remote or local saying something like Insecure to remind people not to put those details in. --[[User:Cazomino05\|Cazomino05]] 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

			== Prevent subsequent loading of HTML code via javascript ==
			Since we need javascript to create HTML GUIs, it'd be bad to disable javascript (for local HTML pages) entirely.
			* Problem: A function like ''executeBrowserJavascript'' would allow loading HTML code via ''document.write''.
			** Possible solution: Don't implement ''executeBrowserJavascript'' and introduce a "web" flag in the ''meta.xml'' file. If this flag is set, ''fileOpen'' will only work in read-only mode. (You'll have to set the web flag then in order to be able to open the website via ''loadBrowserURL'').
			Negative: Less possibilities --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 11:16, 09 May 2014 (UTC)

Jusonex at 21:33, 5 May 2014

2014-05-05T21:33:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 5 May 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:
	Verdict: Go with CEF. We can link the source tree, and push updates frequently as needed. This may prove vital with critical security updates. It'll just require Jusonex to do small 2-600hour changes.		Verdict: Go with CEF. We can link the source tree, and push updates frequently as needed. This may prove vital with critical security updates. It'll just require Jusonex to do small 2-600hour changes.
	* I'm not sure if we should really go with CEF since we are probably forced to run CEF in the main process @ "Problems with CEF" --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 12:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure if we should really go with CEF since we are probably forced to run CEF in the main process @ "Problems with CEF" --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 12:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

			Verdict 2: Go with Awesomium since CEF doesn't match our requirements (as described below).

	== Problems with CEF ==		== Problems with CEF ==
Line 43:		Line 45:
	*** A scripting function to set the user agent of the session		*** A scripting function to set the user agent of the session
	*** Some sample scripts, or some nagging to make sure the community uses HTML5 wherever possible, by the use of user agent or otherwise. We should try and make server owners responsible to avoid taking the lazy route (flash streaming)		*** Some sample scripts, or some nagging to make sure the community uses HTML5 wherever possible, by the use of user agent or otherwise. We should try and make server owners responsible to avoid taking the lazy route (flash streaming)
			* Note: http://www.permadi.com/tutorial/flashjscommand/ (limited way of communication) - thanks to [[User::Cazomino05]]

	== HTTP Auth ==		== HTTP Auth ==

Jusonex at 12:24, 5 May 2014

2014-05-05T12:24:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 5 May 2014
Line 26:		Line 26:
	\|}		\|}

	Verdict: Go with CEF. We can link the source tree, and push updates frequently as needed. This may prove vital with critical security updates. It'll just require Jusonex to do small 2-600hour changes.		Verdict: Go with CEF. We can link the source tree, and push updates frequently as needed. This may prove vital with critical security updates. It'll just require Jusonex to do small 2-600hour changes.
			* I'm not sure if we should really go with CEF since we are probably forced to run CEF in the main process @ "Problems with CEF" --[[User:Jusonex\|Jusonex]] 12:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

			== Problems with CEF ==
			CEF implements Chromium's multi-process architecture by "cloning" the application's main process and running ''CefExecuteProcess'' which blocks the process while executing all the stuff (i.e. audio, rendering etc.). The behaviour leads to '''big issues''' in case of gta_sa.exe: ''CefExecuteProcess'' has to be called from ''WinMain''. Since we can't inject a DLL at this time easily, we have to patch GTA either in memory or on the harddisk (which is too crap).
			As an alternative, CEF provides a setting in order to run it in single-process mode. However this is a bad solution for two reason:
			* Performance and stability (We can't use more than 2GB memory without the LargeAddressAware flag; if GTA uses up to 1GB and CEF as well, we'll run into trouble). Additionally, we can't react to crashes properly
			* Quotation from CEF's developer (- ''yeah, CEF's team consists of only 1 developer''): "Single process mode is intended as a development/debugging tool and is not recommended for production use. There are many potential bugs and stability issues related to use of single process mode. You should strongly consider making your application work in multi process mode." (Source: [http://magpcss.org/ceforum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3427#p6950])

	== Flash ==		== Flash ==

Jusonex: Added a table: Awesomium vs CEF

2014-05-05T11:47:26Z

Added a table: Awesomium vs CEF

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 == Awesomium vs CEF ==
-* Awesomium has already been implemented, and is a proven library for embedding web browsers
+{| class="wikitable"
-* CEF is an open source alternative, which is also established
+!Awesomium
 Verdict: Go with CEF.  We can link the source tree, and push updates frequently as needed.  This may prove vital with critical security updates.  It'll just require Jusonex to do small 2-600hour changes.