LWN: Comments on "The Shumway open SWF runtime project"

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

kripkenstein — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:55:32 +0000

Pyjamas is very useful, but it doesn't have 100% compatible semantics with Python - it uses the underlying JS semantics. It also doesn't support the Python standard library. Compiling and optimizing PyPy would get around both of those issues.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

philh — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:01:05 +0000

> If Java or Python would JIT into JS, thereby reusing the JS JIT, then they could be very fast in the browser too.

I think you may be looking for "pyjamas": http://pyjs.org/
(although, not sure about the JIT bit of that, but it does include a python to JavaScript compiler, so would perhaps be a start)

codec support

coriordan — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:02:10 +0000

Streaming video is only one use of Flash.

If Shumway can get 2D games and websites that have SWF buttons and menus working, then it's a big help and no FLV or MP3 is required.

(I don't have an easy solution for the video formats, but I'm reluctant to start by saying "Let's give up".)

codec support

bjartur — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:30:40 +0000

Nobody is writing a movie decoder in JavaScript. At least not for Mozilla.

    initialize: function initialize() {
      this._element = document.createElement('video');
      this._element.controls = true;
      this._element.setAttribute("style", "position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px");
      this._added = false;
    },

It simply maps to HTML features where available. It will draw vectors to a canvas, but raster images will be handled by the browser.

https://github.com/mozilla/shumway/blob/master/src/flash/media/Video.js

codec support

DonDiego — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:51:38 +0000

So here's the (IMO) most obvious question: Will this be the next project that limits its usefulness by not supporting H.264 and MP3, but only support fringe codecs, at least out-of-the-box?

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

coriordan — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:09:13 +0000

Ok. Well, I wish Shumway great success!

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

gerv — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:57:42 +0000

I recommended internally to the Shumway people that they get in touch with Rob Savoye. Perhaps reasonably, HR won't tell me how that conversation went, but he's not currently working for us.

Gerv

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

coriordan — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:51:08 +0000

Thanks for the link. That's what I was referring to alright.

Since Moz Foundation has now decided to put resources into an SWF player, one way to find good people to work on the project would be to contact the projects that previously spent years doing exactly that.

Just an idea.

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

coriordan — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:08 +0000

> It's now clear that Flash is dying.

It's declining, but change is slow (and time makes a return possible).

For some things, such as children's 2D games and TV channel websites, Flash seems still as dominant as ever. I simply ignore those sites, but my friends don't.

Flash is less necessary now than it was in 2005 (when Gnash began), but it would still be very good to have a free software Flash player.

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

roc — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:49:43 +0000

I think the situation has changed in the last two years. It's now clear that Flash is dying. We don't have to worry about Flash being a competitor to the open Web anymore; the problem now is how to minimize the damage to the open Web, to users and to Mozilla during Flash's demise. Shumway, by mapping SWFs to the open Web platform, does not help Flash compete with the open Web; it helps platforms that support the open Web but not Flash compete for users, and protects users from some of the problems Flash causes.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

smurf — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:42:42 +0000

> Perhaps smurf meant Swfdec?

Of course. My bad.

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

gerv — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:40:43 +0000

I've done a bit of internal searching, and found a quote from Chris Blizzard which is used here:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/why-mozilla-does-no...

That quote focusses more on the lack of an open process than the lack of an open format, but let's not split hairs. Your original post was mostly right. I'd not read the above before.

I never saw a formal funding proposal from Gnash, though.

I do remember some discussions in the last couple of years about us bundling Flash like Chrome does. That has the obvious "it's not open source" issues. Gnash got mentioned in that context; I think people were concerned that the Gnash implementation wasn't complete enough and it would just end up being a massive bug and time sink if we made it the default in Firefox for the whole world. I guess "fund it" would have been a follow-on possibility from that line of argument but I didn't see it raised.

We've taken a lot of pain from Flash in one way or another (hangs, crashes, security issues). The Flash problem has no good, simple solutions. :-|

Gerv

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

coriordan — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:18:12 +0000

My memory is fairly clear on that, but I don't have a link and sticking the keywords into search engines yields mountains of tech discussions about gnash working in Mozilla firefox.

If I'm wrong (which is possible), then what did stop Moz Foundation from helping the struggling SWF projects? Did they want to help, but got no requests and didn't see the funding pleas? Or did the idea of SWF support simply never come up?

(I'm not demonising the Moz Foundation, but if no one can provide a link to evidence, then we have to look at who's version fits the context.)

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

gerv — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:13:16 +0000

"They always refused to give financial help to Gnash and other free SWF players on the grounds that they don't want to support closed formats."

I don't remember that ever being our position; do you have evidentiary support?

Either way, now we've started our own Flash reimplementation project, it would be rather an odd time to start funding someone else's...

Gerv

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

hthoma — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:41:38 +0000

I guess the best we can hope for is that it will be obsolete when it is mature ...

Since when does Moz Foundation support SWF?

coriordan — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:40:27 +0000

They always refused to give financial help to Gnash and other free SWF players on the grounds that they don't want to support closed formats.

That's what they're doing now, right? What changed?

Might they now consider giving Gnash a little help?

killer app: games

hummassa — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:29:27 +0000

> Must check how well Shumway and other free alternatives deal with these nowadays. I did try some Gnash version on the one of the simpler ones years ago, and the result was garbage.

Seconded. My 6yo daughter would benefit too -- tho flashplugin-installer + chrome has not been the pain in the back that they once were. But I agree wholeheartedly that those games are very good testing ground for new swf runtimes...

killer app: games

eru — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:58:29 +0000

Are there really any other good uses for it? ;)

Casual games on the Web. Very popular. My kid divides his game time pretty evenly between those, and Wii. Every TV series for youngsters seems to have Flash games on their web site. Interestingly, some involve a "game builder" where the user can construct game fields from components, then test play and share them. So not they are not always totally mindlessly passivating.

Must check how well Shumway and other free alternatives deal with these nowadays. I did try some Gnash version on the one of the simpler ones years ago, and the result was garbage.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

mgedmin — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:50:04 +0000

Perhaps smurf meant Swfdec?

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

ssmith32 — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:41:57 +0000

And Flash only needs to be fast enough to start the video playing on hulu :)
Are there really any other good uses for it? ;)

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

corbet — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:43:43 +0000

There's lightspark too. Gnash seems pretty moribund at the moment. Lightspark shows occasional signs of life, but doesn't seem to be advancing all that quickly. Perhaps Shumway will actually reach a point of widespread utility and adoption, I don't know. Will keep an eye on it...

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

khim — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:41:05 +0000

If Java or Python would JIT into JS, thereby reusing the JS JIT, then they could be very fast in the browser too.

May be Python, but most definitely not Java. Java programs are often slower but that because Java libraries have so many useless levels of indirection, but Java JITs are much faster then JS ones. Translation to JS JIT can not fix broken libraries design.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

kripkenstein — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:25:54 +0000

> Because JITs built in Javascript are known to be incredibly fast, which is why Java and Python run faster in browsers than natively...

JS JITS *are* in fact among the fastest in dynamic languages, matched only by LuaJIT.

If Java or Python would JIT into JS, thereby reusing the JS JIT, then they could be very fast in the browser too. I've been wanting to do that exact project with PyPy (compile PyPy C code using Emscripten, add a JS JIT backend), am still hoping to interest the PyPy devs in it some day.

For Flash specifically though, the language is very close to JS. JITing into JS there is simpler than the alternatives, and should give good results. Would be interesting to compare to the AS engines in the other FOSS Flash implementations.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

Company — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:21:08 +0000

Because JITs built in Javascript are known to be incredibly fast, which is why Java and Python run faster in browsers than natively...

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

proski — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:20:06 +0000

Shumway is an HTML5 technology experiment that explores building a faithful and efficient renderer for the SWF file format without native code assistance.

Gnash is written in native code (C++). Not sure about "SWFplayer", I think it's long obsolete and irrelevant.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

kripkenstein — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:19:05 +0000

Very different architectures. Shumway builds upon the existing JS JIT and browser hardware acceleration, and benefits from the browser's portability, whereas the others are written in native code, which means it is simpler for them to get fast code in general, but harder to get portability, a fast JIT specifically, graphics acceleration, and sandboxing.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

JoeBuck — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:17:21 +0000

Find out in the next episode of "the grumpy editor's guide to free Flash implementations" (hint, hint)

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

smurf — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:02:01 +0000

So now we have Shumway in addition to gnash and SWFplay.

What's the difference?

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

kripkenstein — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:45:50 +0000

I believe there were blogposts before too, and as you say, the code was always open. I guess at this point they thought it was more mature and wanted to give an update or a more "formal" announcement.

The Shumway open SWF runtime project

juliank — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:05:38 +0000

But why do they blog about it now, and did not blog about it back in February, when code was already available. It's somewhat old news to me, and to those reading the comments here in February (starting at https://lwn.net/Articles/483102/)