Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Mo, Zhenyao
Actually it's a different issue. What we want to do is not enforcing full arguments, but if an input argument is the wrong type, we raise a TypeError. Mo On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote: This sounds related to the recent addition of

Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Mo, Zhenyao
The auto-generated code will look like If (argument.isUndefinedOrNull() == false toType(argument) == null) raise(TypeError); I really think we should do this universally. However, if there is a good reason we really shouldn't, please let us know. On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM,

Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Dumitru Daniliuc
if converting a JS argument to the type declared in the IDL file throws an exception, the auto-generated code will throw a TYPE_MISMATCH_ERR. so i think we just need to change toJS/toV8 to throw exceptions when conversions fails instead of returning NULL (toString(), toInt32(), etc. already do

[webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread Jeremy Orlow
Are there currently any plans for simplifying the situation regarding build systems? I haven't seen any threads for a while, which I assume means no. Is there any low hanging fruit out there? Since many of the build systems are little more than lists of files, it really seems like we should be

Re: [webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread Dumitru Daniliuc
In addition, has anyone ever looked at simplifying the mac port's xcode project? It's _by far_ the heaviest burden on the project given that you pretty much need to use xcode (which is mac only...no other port requires this), exported linker symbols are in a separate file, extra effort to

Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit blog post proposal: Remote debugging with Web Inspector.

2010-08-12 Thread jamey.hicks
On Aug 9, 2010, at 3:48 PM, ext Pavel Feldman wrote: Hi guys, As some of you know, we are working on a remote debugging feature in Web Inspector. There are many good reasons behind the project including the following: - Debugging WebKit on embedded devices - Shaping up a good protocol for

Re: [webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread David Kilzer
On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Dumitru Daniliuc d...@chromium.org wrote: i completely agree with jeremy. is it possible to at least drop the cryptic hashcodes/timestamps? without them, the .xcodeproj files should at least be editable by hand. Doesn't gyp already generate Xcode projects for

Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Mo, Zhenyao
That should work too. mo On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Dumitru Daniliuc d...@chromium.org wrote: so i think we just need to change toJS/toV8... sorry, i meant toClass(), not toJS/toV8. dumi On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Mo, Zhenyao zhen...@gmail.com wrote: Actually it's a

Re: [webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:18 AM, David Kilzer ddkil...@webkit.org wrote: On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Dumitru Daniliuc d...@chromium.org wrote: i completely agree with jeremy. is it possible to at least drop the cryptic hashcodes/timestamps? without them, the .xcodeproj files should at

Re: [webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread Jeremy Orlow
Let me re-iterate (because even some co-workers are getting confused): I'm not secretly trying to get the mac port to start using GYP. (Or saying it's a bad idea either, mind you.) I'm just concerned that the process associated with adding a file (or adding a dependency between projects on the

Re: [webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread Kevin Ollivier
Hi Jeremy, On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:18 AM, David Kilzer ddkil...@webkit.org wrote: On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Dumitru Daniliuc d...@chromium.org wrote: i completely agree with jeremy. is it possible to at least drop the cryptic

Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Sam Weinig
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Sam Weinig sam.wei...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Cedric Vivier cedr...@neonux.comwrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:26, Sam Weinig sam.wei...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread Adam Barth
Eric and I discussed this recently. We think the easiest path forward is to try to remove build systems incrementally. Each build system we remove makes it easier to hack on the project because you have one less build system to worry about. The easiest build system to remove is probably the

Re: [webkit-dev] Build system complexity

2010-08-12 Thread Ojan Vafai
An added benefit of removing the VS build system first would be that we'd be able to build using VS2005 or VS2008. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote: Eric and I discussed this recently. We think the easiest path forward is to try to remove build systems

Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Mo, Zhenyao
Hardly. Right now we already do the type checking in the generated toType(argument) functions. Instead of casting to null, we throw a TypeError, which adds no extra cost if the type is correct. Besides, where I looked, after toType(argument) call, exception is checked. Only that currently

Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Kenneth Russell
For what it's worth, I think this change should be made for all of the DOM bindings, not just those for WebGL. The IDL code generators' support for overloaded methods already generates TypeError when an incoming argument doesn't implement any of the interfaces required by the overloaded variants.

Re: [webkit-dev] js binding: function argument type checking

2010-08-12 Thread Sam Weinig
As I mentioned, I am not necessarily against ever changing the behavior, but if we do, we should make sure to remove all the existing checks, as they become an unnecessary branch. It just seems to me like that should be a separate change than a bug due to ambiguity. -Sam On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at

[webkit-dev] Throwing SECURITY_ERR on cross-origin window.location property accesses

2010-08-12 Thread Mihai Parparita
I was wondering if it would be a reasonable change to make accessing location.href (and other location properties) throw SECURITY_ERR when accessed across origins (https://webkit.org/b/43504). This initially was reported on the Chrome side (http://crbug.com/17325), but it looks like neither the

Re: [webkit-dev] Throwing SECURITY_ERR on cross-origin window.location property accesses

2010-08-12 Thread Darin Fisher
Matching IE and FF means we shouldn't suffer too much in terms of incompatibilities. Of course, there could be some WebKit specific content out there that would break. This seems like a worthwhile change to try out. -Darin On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Mihai Parparita