On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: >>> > That said, this plan was based on the premise that Chromium folks were >>> > willing to cooperate with the unforking effort, and would be happy to >>> > use a >>> > WebKit-integrated URL library based on GoogleURL. If that is no longer >>> > the >>> > case, then certainly we should not proceed on a false premise. >>> >>> I've been talking a bit with Benjamin about this topic off-list. I'm >>> hopeful that with some careful attention to dependencies and >>> interfaces, Chromium will be able to use WTFURL in place of GoogleURL. >> >> I still think it is a bit backwards for Chromium's network stack to depend >> on WebKit, >> but I remain open minded about this. I'm curious how it will work out. > > The general approach I had in mind was to view WTFURL as a separate > library that just happens to be hosted at svn.webkit.org. That > requires some careful managing of dependencies but it seems worth > trying.
I don't really want to reopen this debate, but how is that different than checking GoogleURL into webkit? Maciej was saying that this would impose an unacceptable burden on WebKit developers. I'm wondering what his specific complaints about burden are and whether they might also apply to a standalone WTFURL class. For example, if Maciej is concerned about coding style, we can easily fix that either way and it's a non-issue. If the concern is familiarity, I'm not sure I see the difference between "Adam reimplementing WTFURL" and "using some existing code" since they're both "new code" from the perspective of average WebKit contributors. I'm asking because I suspect Maciej's main concern is control over the library and dependencies and the ability to easily make changes necessary for Apple and WebKit (I would be worried about this, too). >From my perspective, however, this might imply that he would want the ability in the future to make modifications and add dependencies that would be nonstarters with respect to Chromium's requirements. The normal answer (which I agree with) when some random port wants to do something weird and be able to compile without, for example, JavaScript, is that "WebKit doesn't support these one-off use cases, take the whole thing" and we should agree that this reasoning wouldn't apply to dependencies on the URL component. I think there was some agreement last year when the first part of this project happened. If we restart it, I would want to again make sure that everybody really understands what our dependency requirements are and agree that we're not going to be changing them because it's better for the "WebKit community" (c.f. Joe Mason's request to use all of WTF). I also worry that this will be a 9 month project for Adam, as the current partially done parsing thing took longer than anybody would have liked. Personally I would prefer Adam spend time fixing my security bugs :) So I want to be explicit on what Apple perceives as the benefit of "Adam writes a bunch of new well-tested code with no dependencies" vs. "copy existing well-tested code with no dependencies into third_party and possibly reformat" so we can make sure there are no surprises later. That said, I am quite supportive of you unification work for the benefit of WebKit! Brett _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
