On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Aaron Boodman <a...@chromium.org> wrote:

> It is really useful to have early code compiling and running as much
> as possible on all platforms right from the beginning. This catches a
> lot of issues early in the development cycle and prevents scary
> monolithic integration phases.
>

Even in beta/stable releases?  If people want to test bleeding edge
features, I'd argue they should be on the dev channel.


> Could we also fix this problem by doing something in the
> bindings-generation phase to just not have these features'
> constructors created?
>

Possibly.  It's still possible that it'd have a
non-trivial maintenance and/or performance cost though.  I believe Drew is
going to explore further, but for now (and Chrome 3) we should assume such
an option is not available.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Mike Belshe <mbel...@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> I think we need to re-consider our practice of shipping beta/stable
>> browsers with experimental features hidden behind flags--at least when they
>> have any side-effects in JavaScript.  An example of where this has bitten us
>> is http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22181
>>
>> Although part of the problem is the way they coded things (since both
>> SessionStorage and LocalStorage use the Storage interface,
>> its existence doesn't imply SessionStorage is necessarily available), this
>> bug has pointed out a couple problems.  1) constructors are visible to
>> javascript even when the feature is totally disabled.
>>
>
> If it's behind a flag, it shouldn't have been exposed, right?
>

As I explained, this is not true.


> On the surface, it sounds like this code was only partially hidden behind
> the flag?
>

Yes.


> I think it would be a good idea to have a unit test which enumerates all
> symbols that we're exposing into JS.  This should be a controlled list.
>
> If we had this unit test, would it have caught this exposure?
>

Yes.  The point is that (pending Drew's investigation) it's probably not
practical to completely hide all side effects of run time flags that turn on
JavaScript features in WebKit.

J

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
    http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to