Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients
Ha, never mind, then. -yong - Original Message - From: "Eric Seidel" To: "Yong Li" Cc: "WebKit Development" Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Yong Li wrote: ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of WebCore objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another binary other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost always implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together. This statement is false. WebCore is built as a dynamic library on Mac OS X. WebKit provides a ChromeClient: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/mac/WebCoreSupport/WebChromeClient.h -eric ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Yong Li wrote: > ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of WebCore > objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another > binary other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost > always implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together. This statement is false. WebCore is built as a dynamic library on Mac OS X. WebKit provides a ChromeClient: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/mac/WebCoreSupport/WebChromeClient.h -eric ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients
If i remember correctly another strike against this is SVG. I believe that
SVG uses a different set of empty clients. This would make that more difficult?
On Thursday 22 October 2009 03:29:28 pm Yong Li wrote:
> Oops, even m_page is a data member.
>
> Hm... I need to think more about it.
>
> -Yong
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Yong Li"
> To: "Adam Barth"
> Cc: "WebKit Development"
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other
> clients
>
> > Usually, those clients call WebPage or WebFrame to access the data
> > members.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > ChromeClient::doSomething()
> > {
> >m_page->doSomething();
> > }
> >
> > -Yong
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Adam Barth"
> > To: "Yong Li"
> > Cc: "WebKit Development"
> > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other
> > clients
> >
> >
> > How would the class implementing ChromeClient hold any data members?
> > I guess we could use pimpl...
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Yong Li wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of
> >> WebCore
> >> objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another
> >> binary other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost
> >> always implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together.
> >>
> >> If that's true, why do we need those "virtual" functions? One reason
> >> might
> >> be for this case:
> >>
> >> class WebPage: public ChromeClient, public EditorClient, public . {
> >> };
> >>
> >> But I see most ports implement these clients with single classes. If we
> >> can
> >> make this mandatory, then we can remove these "virtual" words from these
> >> client interface, and then the compilers could make those functions
> >> "inline"
> >> whenever suitable. I guess this could boost performance a little bit.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Yong Li
> >> ___
> >> webkit-dev mailing list
> >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients
Oops, even m_page is a data member.
Hm... I need to think more about it.
-Yong
- Original Message -
From: "Yong Li"
To: "Adam Barth"
Cc: "WebKit Development"
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other
clients
Usually, those clients call WebPage or WebFrame to access the data
members.
For example:
ChromeClient::doSomething()
{
m_page->doSomething();
}
-Yong
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Barth"
To: "Yong Li"
Cc: "WebKit Development"
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other
clients
How would the class implementing ChromeClient hold any data members?
I guess we could use pimpl...
Adam
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Yong Li wrote:
Hi All,
ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of
WebCore
objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another
binary other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost
always implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together.
If that's true, why do we need those "virtual" functions? One reason
might
be for this case:
class WebPage: public ChromeClient, public EditorClient, public . {
};
But I see most ports implement these clients with single classes. If we
can
make this mandatory, then we can remove these "virtual" words from these
client interface, and then the compilers could make those functions
"inline"
whenever suitable. I guess this could boost performance a little bit.
Best regards,
Yong Li
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients
Usually, those clients call WebPage or WebFrame to access the data members.
For example:
ChromeClient::doSomething()
{
m_page->doSomething();
}
-Yong
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Barth"
To: "Yong Li"
Cc: "WebKit Development"
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other
clients
How would the class implementing ChromeClient hold any data members?
I guess we could use pimpl...
Adam
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Yong Li wrote:
Hi All,
ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of
WebCore
objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another
binary other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost
always implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together.
If that's true, why do we need those "virtual" functions? One reason might
be for this case:
class WebPage: public ChromeClient, public EditorClient, public . {
};
But I see most ports implement these clients with single classes. If we
can
make this mandatory, then we can remove these "virtual" words from these
client interface, and then the compilers could make those functions
"inline"
whenever suitable. I guess this could boost performance a little bit.
Best regards,
Yong Li
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients
How would the class implementing ChromeClient hold any data members?
I guess we could use pimpl...
Adam
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Yong Li wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of WebCore
> objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another
> binary other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost
> always implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together.
>
> If that's true, why do we need those "virtual" functions? One reason might
> be for this case:
>
> class WebPage: public ChromeClient, public EditorClient, public . {
> };
>
> But I see most ports implement these clients with single classes. If we can
> make this mandatory, then we can remove these "virtual" words from these
> client interface, and then the compilers could make those functions "inline"
> whenever suitable. I guess this could boost performance a little bit.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yong Li
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>
>
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] virtual functions in ChromeClient and other clients
Hi All,
ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of WebCore
objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another binary
other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost always
implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together.
If that's true, why do we need those "virtual" functions? One reason might be
for this case:
class WebPage: public ChromeClient, public EditorClient, public . {
};
But I see most ports implement these clients with single classes. If we can
make this mandatory, then we can remove these "virtual" words from these client
interface, and then the compilers could make those functions "inline" whenever
suitable. I guess this could boost performance a little bit.
Best regards,
Yong Li___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
