From owner-freebsd-chromium@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 29 17:50:55 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: chromium@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC2AB29 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:50:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from evanm@google.com) Received: from mail-vc0-x22a.google.com (mail-vc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C447628DE for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hv10so152834vcb.1 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OHZD+JVOFAAu7Pdbn49bLwCe1Tbx8jcF5XOUbs/oUns=; b=jeb9xSaeShA32nx/BHnuJMA2u1keHD0wPtkeO9AXuJH7/ssE5OmifmWlcrQYkP7Qsi fHCgNP16JTBR+bnIdbiuJ5sP12aY43uf8ZV+aLsQ1rE13JnchZfnEYxRz31ODIAaB7dq l+YrDeDhTCHEQV3D8mW/DZnsWjlYajLhNGzkV4kQLSVnU0jt5aTovq0JFxR+IQDKABRi 6Sgwghl7hMbQvQJKjecFr332+U6a8aDCVNyNWPN/r6Aa1T+MKduJScnkW3Pn5vi7laZT CM26MeVjeDTlB1dj/2XOegRMwo2ag9sW5HepzqW940luv6luXxAQGNVxyUtuZe5Ry//Y vEuw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OHZD+JVOFAAu7Pdbn49bLwCe1Tbx8jcF5XOUbs/oUns=; b=ogJc4UnrRtZEnrtw/6OiOzwIPlRw4drFyA5eKF3WwB6eQ/M8+t1hhsjVxLOWs+PtA3 Gs9npn+H5Dpr/Ptw5PEYOq4X/Ji1rCh1nOJsvxv+DDck6RrT9LgmofusRqfHIgK4mZDi S73RBaQ3mWIM05hf924LQhmBluQ2oxRrraRuI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OHZD+JVOFAAu7Pdbn49bLwCe1Tbx8jcF5XOUbs/oUns=; b=MMYiDI54W6PZq+jG6Y0Ynd5dd6drd8+atJPdWPhGOnKO5WjQLeuYfUcstowfz2oSRU zR5TpbeMjSi3+qjZrNJ8akp/rTU1FO4oJDQ8E66RuVJBYpeD3mDBU+RTqmNyovf8A5dk grLhT8tAOd0tCYy6QZZ4cMlQr1s3NcpEswddrLM3rxKTFwX6Y2aAtHfq6wfcfRZExpyu C/nCn9Dgc307Q0zMX/iug3qxpbjCQ1QFoUyGYOyrdncFns1hvurpyC5lg8EtkPku87sK 4TcztecPY4Bs1jeaGxapE7sbTXayCDVG36MQo6jMM2SLk21RuJJWnQrJpXCoKc8ybVvz Qh1w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQniuV8ddoy8Kyw3J3MYwnXU2U4Dq+le5le1QYT9BlWz+NPBV/qkDM97pt3IY3HpSRKM6MEF5iWEYK/fvwDwUiL8+kouRbUT+cmdOHWsMnB09lE6ZmfKjWdgN2KK9pJ0KumHTo3pte995isY4v8peEYxuUSpbpY2iiHPIbgNCNgtxUG/VrFSp0M0kJBBE4QxrZWxl0mJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.16.73 with SMTP id n9mr332031vca.24.1383069053681; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: evanm@google.com Received: by 10.52.230.106 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <526F0B38.10204@rawbw.com> References: <5265ED2F.7030009@rawbw.com> <526C3BEF.1020409@rawbw.com> <526F0B38.10204@rawbw.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:50:53 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 02ZzLJRWfHn-i1M2px9X-nzSVEg Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why Google street view scrolls not very smoothly in Chrome? From: Evan Martin To: Yuri Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: chromium@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Chromium issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:50:55 -0000 On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Yuri wrote: > On 10/28/2013 14:22, Evan Martin wrote: > >> Ah, you're using nspluginwrapper. Unfortunately, nspluginwrapper just >> doesn't work very well with Chrome. >> >> nspluginwrapper is actually unmaintained, and in working on Chrome for >> Linux we ran into so many problems with it that one of the Chrome >> developers took over maintainership in an attempt to fix some bugs! But in >> practice I don't think it'll ever work well. >> >> http://nspluginwrapper.org/ => last release was June 2011. >> > > Ok, I agree. nspluginwrapper probably won't ever work well. > But it works better in firefox for this same application. > So maybe this isn't nspluginwraspper fault in this case. If only you knew how many hours I spent chasing down nspluginwrapper-related bugs while implementing Chrome's plugin support... :) But you are right, nspluginwrapper will likely always work better in Firefox.