El sáb, 10-08-2013 a las 12:45 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva escribió: > On Sex, 2013-08-09 at 18:39 +0200, Sergio Villar Senin wrote: > > > What do you think? is this enough or am I missing something? > > > > The API looks great to me. I am not sure about the naming either, > > perhaps WebKitWebFrame would look more familiar. > > I agree!
Great! I'll submit patches next week. The freeze is coming :-) > > The only doubt I have is whether it pays off the ScriptWorld object > > you propose or not. The API looks well designed but if we are not > > planing to add future API to that object maybe it's a bit overkill. > > The good thing of using an object is it'll be easier to extend if we > ever required. This looks like one of those cases in which that is quite > likely to be needed, as more security and isolation features appear. It's also very useful to handle the default world as a singleton and to make the world emit the window-object-cleared signal, instead of emitting it in the frame and pass the world as a callback parameter. Note that if a world is never created, for apps not injecting javascript at all, the signal is not even emitted (obviously as the object emitting it doesn't exist). Regarding the name, Martin proposed to use WebKitWebFrame, and if we eventually expose frames in the UI process, use WebKitFrame there. And I think it's a good idea, simpler (and shorter) than WebKitWebPageFrame, but I think we can do it the other way around. Use WebKitFrame in the web extensions API, and WebKitWebFrame in the UI, since wk1 users are used to think of a WebKitWebFrame as a frame of a WebKitWebView. > Cheers, > -- Carlos Garcia Campos http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF3D322D0EC4582C3
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ webkit-gtk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-gtk
