On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> I am not sure how to get the key points across without being accurate or >> misleading. A version that I think explains the complete design without >> saying anything false or misleading: >> >> >> refTheDocumentItselfButUnlikeTheRegularRefDontPreventTheDocumentsChildrenFromBeingRemovedToAvoidCyclesWhenRefingTheOwnerDocument >> >> To make a reasonable name we probably need to focus on one of these >> aspects. Perhaps one approach is to focus on when and why you should use >> this call, rather than what it does: >> >> refAsOwnerDocument() / m_refCountAsOwnerDocument (or >> m_ownerDocumentRefCount) >> refAvoidingCycles() (or cycleAvoidingRef()) / m_cycleAvoidingRefCount >> > > We probably need to qualify kinds of cycles we're avoiding: ones through > descendents (or subtree); e.g. this doesn't avoid cycles with JSC/V8 > objects. > > > That's one reason I like refAsOwnerDocument() slightly better. It tells > you when to use it, and when Node.cpp does > m_document->refAsOwnerDocument(), it will make sense in context. > Yeah, refAsOwnerDocument() sounds good to me. However, if you wanted to make the other version more exactingly precise, > you could say something like refAvodingCyclesWithDescendents(). > Coincidentally, that's one of suggestions I made so I'm fine with that version as well :) - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
