Extension Manager:Security Review: Difference between revisions

Extension Manager:Security Review (view source)

539 bytes removed , 27 November 2007

canmove, Confirmed users

1,570

edits

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 '' How will the project contribute (positively or negatively) to "perceived performance"?''
-The ability to install add-ons and the diverse selection available is one of Firefox's strengths. However the feature does add some performance costs.
+There are no changes to perceived performance in Firefox 3
-The Add-ons manager adds a small startup cost for evaluating existing add-ons and a larger cost if there are any operations to be performed (installs, uninstalls etc). '''Rob, do we have any metrics on this?'''
-Add-ons themselves generally impose a performance cost on Txul unfortunately increasing for every add-on installed. This can make an application running many add-ons perform significantly worse than one with no add-ons.
 '' What are the performance goals of the project? How were they evaluated? What is the test or reference platform and baseline results?''
-'''Rob?'''
+The goals were to not impact performance.
 '' Will it require large files/databases (for example, browsing history)?''
-The largest of the state files (extensions.rdf) is not loaded on startup due to performance considerations.
+There are no additional files required over those in Firefox 2
 == Reliability ==