Re: [webkit-dev] LocalStorage spec and structured cloning

2011-06-03 Thread Jeremy Orlow
You can't store much data in cookies and thus you're only shooting yourself in the foot with a bb gun. 5mb means you're shooting yourself in the foot with a real gun. And if you're allowing over 5mb, it's a bazooka. Anyway, I've written extensively about this many times on many different lists.

Re: [webkit-dev] LocalStorage spec and structured cloning

2011-06-03 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > You can't store much data in cookies and thus you're only shooting yourself > in the foot with a bb gun. 5mb means you're shooting yourself in the foot > with a real gun. And if you're allowing over 5mb, it's a bazooka. ...and for this rea

Re: [webkit-dev] Do we have a style preference about const member functions?

2011-06-03 Thread Darin Adler
On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > All functions passed to enclosingNodeOfType in htmlediting.cpp are such > clients: > > Node* enclosingNodeOfType(const Position& p, bool (*nodeIsOfType)(const > Node*), EditingBoundaryCrossingRule rule) > > It takes a boolean function that take

Re: [webkit-dev] Any objections to switching to Xcode 3.2.4 or newer?

2011-06-03 Thread Patrick Mueller
On 10/6/10 8:00 PM, Darin Adler wrote: For those working on Mac OS X: Any objection to upgrading to Xcode 3.2.4? It’s now showing up in Apple’s Software Update for all Xcode users, I believe. I opened https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62011 to get the web site updated to indicate >= 3.2.

Re: [webkit-dev] Do we have a style preference about const member functions?

2011-06-03 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > >> All functions passed to enclosingNodeOfType in htmlediting.cpp are such >> clients: >> >> Node* enclosingNodeOfType(const Position& p, bool (*nodeIsOfType)(const >> Node*), EditingBoundaryCro

Re: [webkit-dev] Cherry-Pick Bug Comments

2011-06-03 Thread Adam Barth
Either (1) or (2) is fine. Please pick one and do it. The status quo is very annoying. Adam On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Ademar Reis wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: >> I get a lot of these: >> Revision r86028 cherry-picked into qtwebkit-2.2 with commit 7e1bab

Re: [webkit-dev] Do we have a style preference about const member functions?

2011-06-03 Thread Darin Adler
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> >>> All functions passed to enclosingNodeOfType in htmlediting.cpp are such >>> clients: >>> >>> Node* enclosingNodeOfType(const Positio

Re: [webkit-dev] Do we have a style preference about const member functions?

2011-06-03 Thread Peter Kasting
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > From a const Node* you can get: > >- a non-const pointer to a parent, sibling, or child >- a non-const pointer to the document >- a non-const pointer to the renderer >- a non-const pointer to the style >- a non-const pointer

Re: [webkit-dev] Do we have a style preference about const member functions?

2011-06-03 Thread Darin Adler
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: > From the perspective of Node itself, I'm not sure why this would be a "big > task". There shouldn't be any const accessors that return non-const pointers. > Simply removing the "const" qualifier on all the above accessors would make > things co