On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Levin <le...@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> What do you think of the idea of having a re-useable BlobCore module > >> that all the ports can share? > > > > I don't think this is a good idea. This "re-usable module" would only be > > used by the Safari WebKit port. As I understand it, Chromium wouldn't be > > able to re-use it due to not re-using WebKit types in general. With only > one > > port using it, the module seems like it would not be able to have a good > > design. > > > > So if there is a change, it seems better to just write it for the Safari > > WebKit port and as other ports want to implement it, if they find > > commonality, it would be in their best interest to refractor the existing > > code for better re-use. > > Would Chromium be able to re-use the code if it were part of WebCore? > I guess I don't understand what's different about those two cases. > No. As David said, one reason is to avoid incurring the unnecessary cost of converting between WebCore type data and Chromium type data. > > Another question, does this design allow blob URLs to be used by the > <video> element? My understanding is that <video> bypasses > ResourceHandle because ResourceHandle isn't smart enough to handle > range requests (or something like that). > > Unfortunately it does not work for video elements since they're loaded in different code path. > Adam >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
