Chromium Code Reviews| OLD | NEW |
|---|---|
| (Empty) | |
| 1 # Extension Bindings | |
| 2 | |
| 3 [TOC] | |
| 4 | |
| 5 ## What Is It | |
|
lazyboy
2017/05/23 22:20:19
nit: What Is It? or What It Is
Devlin
2017/05/23 23:09:47
Done.
| |
| 6 | |
| 7 The Bindings System is responsible for creating the JS entry points for APIs. | |
| 8 It creates the `chrome` object (if it does not exist) and adds the API objects | |
| 9 (e.g. `tabs`) that should be accessible to the context. | |
| 10 | |
| 11 ## Initialization | |
| 12 | |
| 13 Bindings are initialized by creating an ObjectTemplate from an API specification | |
| 14 and stamping out copies of this template. This means that once an API is | |
| 15 instantiated once, further instantiations within that same process are | |
| 16 significantly faster. The API itself is specified from a .json or .idl file in | |
| 17 extensions/common/api or chrome/common/extensions/api. | |
| 18 | |
| 19 This is slightly complicated because APIs may have features (such as specific | |
| 20 methods or events) that are restricted in certain contexts, even if the rest of | |
| 21 the API is available. As a result, after object instantiation, there’s a chance | |
| 22 we may have to alter the object in order to remove these unavailable features. | |
| 23 | |
| 24 ## API Features | |
| 25 | |
| 26 A "feature" of an API is a property on the API object to expose some | |
| 27 functionality. There are three main types of features exposed on APIs. | |
| 28 | |
| 29 * __Functions__: | |
| 30 Functions are the main type of feature exposed on APIs. They allow callers to | |
| 31 interact with the browser and trigger behavior. | |
| 32 | |
| 33 * __Events__: | |
| 34 Most events are dispatched when something happens to inform an interested party | |
| 35 of the instance. Callers subscribe to the events they are interested in, and | |
| 36 are notified only for subscribed events. While most events do not influence | |
| 37 behavior change in the browser, declarative events may. | |
| 38 | |
| 39 * __Properties__: | |
| 40 Certain APIs have exposed properties that are accessed directly on the API | |
| 41 object. These are frequently constants (including enum definitions), but are | |
| 42 also sometimes properties relating to the state of the context. | |
| 43 | |
| 44 ## Restriction | |
| 45 | |
| 46 Not all APIs are available to all contexts; we restrict which capabilities are | |
| 47 exposed based on multiple factors. | |
| 48 | |
| 49 ### Scope | |
| 50 | |
| 51 Features may be restricted at multiple scopes. The most common is at the | |
| 52 API-scope - where none of the API will be made available if the requirements | |
| 53 aren’t met. In this case, the chrome.<apiName> property will simply be | |
| 54 undefined. However, we also have the ability to restrict features on a more | |
| 55 granular scope, such as at the method or event level. In this case, even though | |
| 56 most of an API may be available, a certain function might not be; or, | |
| 57 conversely, only a small subset of features may be available while the rest of | |
| 58 the API is restricted. | |
| 59 | |
| 60 ### Restricting Properties | |
| 61 Feature restrictions are based on a specific v8::Context. Different | |
| 62 contexts within the same frame may have different API availabilities (this is | |
| 63 significantly different than the web platform, where features are exposed at the | |
| 64 frame-level). The bindings system takes into account context type, associated | |
| 65 extensions, URL, and more when evaluating features; for more information, see | |
| 66 the [feature documentation](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/mas ter/chrome/common/extensions/api/_features.md). | |
|
jbroman
2017/05/23 20:46:09
nit: you can use relative and repository-relative
Devlin
2017/05/23 23:09:47
Done.
| |
| 67 | |
| 68 ## Typical Function Flow | |
| 69 | |
| 70 The typical flow for all API methods is the same. A JS entry point (the method | |
| 71 on the API object) leads to a common native implementation. This implementation | |
| 72 has the following steps: | |
| 73 | |
| 74 * __Argument Parsing__: | |
| 75 | |
| 76 Passed arguments are parsed against an expected signature defined in the API | |
| 77 specification. If the passed arguments match the signature, the arguments are | |
| 78 normalized and converted to a serialized format (base::Value). | |
| 79 * __Request Dispatch__: | |
| 80 A request is dispatched with the parsed arguments and other information about | |
| 81 the request (such as requesting context and user gesture status). If a callback | |
| 82 is included in the arguments, it is stored (along with other information about | |
| 83 the request) until the response is received. | |
| 84 * __Request Response__: | |
| 85 A response is provided asynchronously, indicating success or failure, along with | |
| 86 any return values (to pass to a provided callback) or an error message. The | |
| 87 pending request is removed. | |
| 88 | |
| 89 ## Custom Function Hooks | |
| 90 | |
| 91 Certain APIs need to deviate from this typical flow in order to customize | |
| 92 behavior. We provide the following general custom hooks for APIs to modify the | |
| 93 typical behavior. | |
| 94 | |
| 95 * __updateArgumentsPreValidate__: | |
| 96 Allows an API implementation to modify passed arguments before the argument | |
| 97 signature is validated. This can be useful in the case of undocumented | |
| 98 (internal) parameters or properties, such as a generated ID. | |
| 99 * __updateArgumentsPostValidate__: | |
| 100 Allows an API implementation to modify passed arguments after the argument | |
| 101 signature is validated, but before the request is handled. Note: this is | |
| 102 usually bad practice, as any modification means that the arguments no longer | |
| 103 match the expected signature. This can cause headaches when we attempt to | |
| 104 deserialize these values. | |
| 105 * __handleRequest__: | |
| 106 Allows an API implementation to internally handle a request. This is useful | |
| 107 when the request itself should not go through the normal flow, such as when the | |
| 108 logic requires a greater level of involvement on the renderer, or is entirely | |
| 109 handled without needing to message the browser. | |
| 110 * __customCallback__: | |
| 111 Allows an API implementation to add a callback that should be called with the | |
| 112 result of an API function call before the caller’s callback is invoked. It is | |
| 113 the responsibility of the custom callback to invoke the original callback, which | |
| 114 is passed as an argument. This is useful when the return results should be | |
| 115 mutated before returning to the caller (which can be necessary when the eventual | |
| 116 result could be a renderer-specific concept, such as a DOMWindow). | |
| 117 | |
| 118 An API implementation may use one or more of these hooks. | |
| 119 | |
| 120 ### Registering Hooks | |
| 121 | |
| 122 Custom Hooks can be registered through either native or JS bindings. In native | |
| 123 bindings, APIs can subclass APIBindingHooksDelegate and register themselves with | |
| 124 the bindings system. This typically happens during the bootstrapping of the | |
| 125 renderer process. Native binding hooks are the preferred approach for new | |
| 126 bindings. | |
| 127 | |
| 128 We also expose hooks in JS through the APIBindingBridge object, which provides | |
| 129 a registerCustomHook method to allow APIs to create hooks in JS. This style of | |
| 130 custom hooks is __not preferred__ and will be __deprecated__. These are bad | |
| 131 because a) JS is much more susceptible to untrusted code and b) since these run | |
| 132 on each object instantiation, the performance cost is significantly higher. | |
| 133 | |
| 134 ## Events | |
| 135 | |
| 136 Events are dispatched when the associated action occurs. | |
| 137 | |
| 138 ### Types | |
| 139 | |
| 140 There are three types of events. | |
| 141 | |
| 142 * __Regular__: | |
| 143 These events are dispatched to the subscriber when something happens, and merely | |
| 144 serve as a notification to allow the subscriber to react. | |
| 145 * __Declarative__: | |
| 146 Declarative events allow a subscriber to specify some action to be taken when an | |
| 147 event occurs. For instance, the declarativeContent API allows a subscriber to | |
| 148 indicate that an action should be shown whenever a certain URL pattern or CSS | |
| 149 rule is matched. For these events, the subscriber is not notified when the | |
| 150 event happens; rather, the browser takes immediately takes the specified action. | |
|
lazyboy
2017/05/23 22:20:19
the browser immediately takes..
Devlin
2017/05/23 23:09:47
Done.
| |
| 151 By virtue of not notifying the subscriber, we help preserve the user’s privacy; | |
| 152 if a subscriber says "do X when the user visits example.com", it does not know | |
| 153 whether the user visited example.com. (Note: subsequent actions, such as a user | |
| 154 interacting with the action on a given page, can expose this.) | |
| 155 * __Imperative__: | |
| 156 A few events are designed to be dispatched and to return a response from the | |
| 157 subscriber, indicating an action the browser should take. These are | |
| 158 predominantly used in the webRequest API, where a subscriber can register events | |
| 159 for navigations, receive notifications of those navigations, and return a result | |
| 160 of whether the navigation should continue, cancel, or redirect. These events | |
| 161 are generally discouraged for performance reasons, and declarative events are | |
| 162 preferred. | |
| 163 | |
| 164 ### Filters | |
| 165 | |
| 166 Certain events also allow the registration of filters, which allow subscribers | |
| 167 to only be notified of a subset of events. For example, the webNavigation and | |
| 168 webRequest APIs allow filtering by URL pattern, so that uninteresting | |
| 169 navigations are ignored. | |
| 170 | |
| 171 ## Legacy JavaScript Implementations | |
| 172 | |
| 173 The prior bindings system was implemented primarily in JavaScript, rather than | |
| 174 utilizing native code. There were many reasons for this, but they include ease | |
| 175 of coding and more limited interactions with Blink (WebKit at the time) and V8. | |
| 176 Unfortunately, this led to numerous security vulnerabilities (because untrusted | |
| 177 code can run in the same context) and performance issues (because bindings were | |
| 178 set up per context, and could not be cached in any way). | |
| 179 | |
| 180 While the native bindings system replaces the core functionality with a native | |
| 181 implementation, individual APIs may still be implemented in JavaScript custom | |
| 182 bindings, or hooks. These should eventually be replaced by native-only | |
| 183 implementations. | |
| 184 | |
| 185 ## Differences Between Web/Blink Bindings | |
| 186 | |
| 187 There are a number of differences between the Extensions Bindings System and | |
| 188 Blink Bindings. | |
| 189 | |
| 190 ### Common Implementation to Optimize Binary Size | |
| 191 | |
| 192 Most Extension APIs are implemented in the browser process after a common flow | |
| 193 in the renderer. This allows us to optimize the renderer implementation for | |
| 194 space and have the majority of APIs lead to a single entry point, which can | |
| 195 match an API against an expected schema. This is contrary to Blink Bindings, | |
| 196 which set up a distinct separate entry point for each API, and then individually | |
| 197 parses the expected results. | |
| 198 | |
| 199 The Blink implementation provides greater speed, but comes at a larger generated | |
| 200 code cost, since each API has its own generated parsing and handling code. | |
| 201 Since most Blink/open web APIs are implemented in the renderer, this cost is not | |
| 202 as severe - each API would already require specialized code in the renderer. | |
| 203 | |
| 204 Extension APIs, on the other hand, are predominantly implemented in the browser; | |
| 205 this means we can optimize space by having a single parsing/handling point. | |
| 206 This is also beneficial because many extension APIs are exposed on a more | |
| 207 limited basis, where only a handful of contexts need access to them, and thus | |
| 208 the binary size savings is more valuable, and the speed cost less harmful. | |
| 209 | |
| 210 ### Signature Matching | |
| 211 | |
| 212 Signature matching differs significantly between WebIDL and Extension APIs. | |
| 213 | |
| 214 #### Optional Inner Parameters | |
| 215 | |
| 216 Unlike OWP APIs, Extension APIs allow for optional inner parameters. For | |
| 217 instance, if an API has the signature `(integer, optional string, optional | |
| 218 function)`, it may be invoked with `(integer, function)` - which would not be | |
| 219 valid in the OWP. This also allows for inner parameters to be optional with | |
| 220 subsequent required parameters, such as `(integer, optional string, function)` - | |
| 221 again, something which would be disallowed on the OWP. | |
| 222 | |
| 223 #### Unknown Properties | |
| 224 | |
| 225 Unknown properties on objects are, by default, unallowed. That is, if a | |
| 226 function accepts an object that has properties of `foo` and `bar`, passing | |
| 227 `{foo: <foo>, bar: <bar>, baz: <baz>}` is invalid. | |
| OLD | NEW |