Ok fine, I can't give you any guidance if your changes would be accepted, sorry. That seems interesting though and I'd be interested in adding printing support to test_shell.
M-A 2008/9/20 Marshall Greenblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi M-A, > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> It's a fair amount of work, you have enough time to implement that? I >> can't tell about whether we'd accept the patches or not. I'd accept >> the move of printing classes to base though. > > I've already implemented the control as described in the synopsis. It's > still a complete mess, of course, so I won't bother anyone to look at the > sources yet. Most of the capability that I needed was demonstrated in the > test_shell project. The patches that I've submitted over the last week > provide the additional base functionality that was missing. I borrowed > context menus and printing from other parts of the code base, so I still > need to factor out those dependencies. Other than that, it's just a matter > of design decisions and style ;-). I'll submit any changes that also make > sense for test_shell as separate patches for consideration. > > As far as a time line for cleaning up the whole project and preparing it for > submission, I'd say more than weeks and less than months. I'll only bother > if there's a middling chance that it would be accepted -- which is why I've > submitted the design for consideration. It would definitely help to have > the Google style verification tools, so I might wait for those. > >> >> From what I read, you want a custom interface, so no activex control nor >> XPCOM? > > I intentionally avoided using COM-like technologies because I find them > cumbersome, annoying and difficult to understand and document properly. > Also, using COM interfaces from C should be banned as a form of torture. > The lack of COM in the main chromium code base is one of the primary reasons > why I chose it as the basis for this project. I've already implemented > similar projects based on IWebBrowser2 and I was extremely dissatisfied with > the myriad ugly workarounds required. > > From the "custom interface" prospective, though, I would suggest that using > the Windows messaging system does not qualify as a custom interface any more > than defining your own COM classes would. Unless you're suggesting a > chromium-based clone of IWebBrowser2? > >> >> >> Is this windows-only? > > The current implementation is Windows-only, but there's no reason why it > couldn't be ported to other systems. We would just need to make changes > similar to the work currently going on for test_shell (abstract the > interface, etc). > >> >> M-A >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
