Why wasn't it done that way originally? That sounds (to my uneducated ear) much better than what's done today.
J On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > WebCore::LayoutTestController would be exposed to JavaScript running > in LayoutTests directly (like the DOM), so we can skip the type > conversions. > > Adam > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Satish Sampath <[email protected]> wrote: > > With a WebCore::LayoutTestController, would there be a need for code in > > WebKit to convert the call parameters from WebKit types (which DRT uses) > to > > WebCore types (which the mocks may use) ? If yes seems like we need > wrappers > > to proxy the mock calls anyway on different platforms.. > > Cheers > > Satish > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for bring this question to the list. I don't have a strong > >> opinion here, but I want to make sure we think project-wide and pick > >> something scalable. > >> > >> This discussion is also related to the discussion about adding > >> something like a layoutTestController object to WebCore. Plumbing > >> this mock API all the way through WebKit for each port seems like a > >> waste. If we had something like a WebCore::LayoutTestController, it > >> would make a lot more sense to expose that functionality there. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Steve Block <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > I'm in the process of adding a mock client for DeviceOrientation, > >> > which will be used in DumpRenderTree to test the feature. In order to > >> > share the mock across platforms, I'd like to add the mock to > >> > WebCore/platform/mock. > >> > > >> > An interface to the mock will have to be exposed to the embedder > >> > through the platform's WebKit API, so that it can be configured by > >> > DRT, eg ... > >> > > >> > mWebView.getDeviceOrientationClientMock().setOrientation(...); > >> > > >> > To avoid each platform having to produce it's own WebKit wrapper for > >> > the mock, I'm considering adding a common WebKit wrapper, perhaps to > >> > WebKit/common, and I wanted to get some feedback on the idea. The mock > >> > would be shared between all C++ WebKit platforms. (Note that this is > >> > for convenience only, a platform could equally use it's own WebKit > >> > wrapper around the WebCore mock (eg Mac may do so in ObjectiveC), or > >> > use its own mock altogether.) > >> > > >> > Of course we also need WebKit wrappers for all of the non-POD types > >> > used by the mock's interface, and these have to be common between all > >> > platforms. One obvious potential difficulty is the wrapper for > >> > WebCore::String. Each platforms already has a wrapper for this type, > >> > but there's no guarantee of interoperability, so we'd need to write a > >> > new common interface if we're to use the string type. > >> > > >> > If a wrapper for string ends up being too problematic, the approach > >> > could still be used for mocks that don't need the string type (of > >> > which DeviceOrientation is one), but the approach then seems less > >> > compelling. > >> > > >> > Do people think that this is a reasonable proposal and worth pursuing? > >> > Has there been any attempt to do anything similar before? Or is any > >> > attempt to write this kind of common WebKit code not worth the effort > >> > and destined to failure? > >> > > >> > You can see the work in progress for DeviceOrientation at > >> > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39589 and a similar patch for > >> > SpeechInput mocks at https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42603 > >> > > >> > I'd appreciate any feedback you may have. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Steve > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Google UK Limited > >> > Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London > >> > SW1W 9TQ > >> > Registered in England Number: 3977902 > >> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
