[re-sent from the proper address] On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Adam Barth <abarth@nowhere> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Brady Eidson <beid...@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 26, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> First, direct calls on testRunner that just set preferences should be >>> migrated to internals.settings or testRunner.overridePreference calls, I >>> think (I don't know if either is preferred). >>> >> >> I support the idea of unifying the approaches and just use >> internals.settings. However, the last time I checked, Alexey had some >> concerns about using internals due to settings may not be properly >> propagated to WebKit2 layer. Has this concern been addressed? >> >> >> In general I prefer the overridePreference() calls whenever they exist. >> >> internals.settings are not exposed in any real-world product whereas >> preferences exist in each platform's WebKit-layer API that they expose to >> their embedders in some form. >> > > The main downside of overridePreference is that it requires that you > expose an API for twiddling the preference on every port. That can lead to > us exposing unneeded APIs (making them harder to remove) and to a bunch of > port-specific code in an otherwise port-independent patch. > > IMHO, we should prefer InternalSettings unless we need to test the > WebKit-layer code. > > Adam > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
