It's kind of ridiculous to have an external dependency on a piece of
code this tiny.
dave
On Oct 2, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I consider the option of completely
replacing WebKit's URL implementation with an external dependency to
be a nonstarter.
Assume that we wound up in a world where GURL formed the basis of
the WebKit URL implementation. Does this statement mean you would
copy the GURL sources into the WebKit tree and periodically recopy
(kind of like Chromium does with a number of its dependencies, e.g.
libxml, libjpeg, etc.)? Or that you would copy once and then ignore
upstream (i.e. fork)? Or that you would not be willing to even
consider basing anything off GURL code unless it moved from its
current repository into the WebKit tree as its sole home (making it
hard for any other project to use it)? Or some other possibility
I've missed?
There are already various dependencies of WebKit on other projects'
code (e.g. sqlite) so I guess I'm trying to figure out how to parse
this statement and whether you're saying that this section of the
code is subject to different requirements. At least in the Chromium
codebase, having pieces like googleurl be pulled in as external
dependencies has not been problematic at all, and has been useful
for other projects.
PK
_______________________________________________
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
