The biggest need WRT the inspector is docking to the bottom. Being able
to dock generically would definitely be better, but gets diminishing
returns. I
think it's a good goal and something we'll probably want for
extensions anyways.

Ojan
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> Ben, this sounds great.
>
> Ojan, would you generalize this to have docking support ala Visual
> Studio or would prefer to keep it simple? Having support for generic
> docking would enable creating side windows found in other browsers (if
> we care at all) and extensions living as side gadgets.
>
> M-A
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Ojan Vafai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This may be too forward-looking to be relevant, but we were recently
> > discussing being able to dock the web inspector (a feature for which we
> > currently have a UI that does nothing). It would position at the bottom
> like
> > the download shelf, but it would be considerably larger and resizable by
> the
> > user, not to mention have HTML as it's contents.
> > In either case, seems like some of this stuff should be shared in this
> case.
> > Mostly I'm just putting this on your radar should any related
> hypothetical
> > questions come up (e.g. can you assume all such docked views are the same
> > size).
> > Ojan
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> In a continuation of the state/view separation work I have been doing
> >> with the Browser window, my attention has turned to some of the bits
> >> of UI hosted by the Browser frame, but owned (at present) by the
> >> WebContentsView.
> >>
> >> After some discussion with Brett, it's our conclusion that the bits of
> >> UI that WebContentsView owns but which end up being attached to the
> >> frame should probably just live in the frame. This way we make the
> >> WebContentsView simpler, as well as simplifying many of the
> >> interactions between the hosting frame and the WebContentsView. The
> >> relevant UI components are the InfoBars, the FindBar and the Download
> >> Shelf.
> >>
> >> As a result, what I am seeking to do is move Chrome browser specific
> >> UI components out of the WebContentsView and into BrowserView. The
> >> first component I am going to tackle are the InfoBars.
> >>
> >> My plan of attack is as follows:
> >>
> >> Create a new views::View subclass called InfoBarContainer or some
> >> such. This is the spiritual successor of InfoBarView. This is a View
> >> that will be owned by the BrowserView that will contain any InfoBars
> >> associated with the selected tab.
> >>
> >> Massage InfoBarItemView/InfoBarConfirmView/InfoBarMessageView etc to
> >> be less state-ful. Rather they will obtain their state by talking to a
> >> hierarchy of platform independent InfoBarDelegate interfaces which the
> >> modules that wish to add InfoBars will implement.
> >>
> >> Add some methods to WebContents for the purposes of adding and
> >> removing InfoBars. The parameter will be an InfoBarDelegate interface
> >> or derivative.
> >>
> >> Add notification types broadcasting the addition and removal of
> >> InfoBars for a given WebContents. The Source of the Notification is a
> >> WebContents*, the Details is the InfoBarDelegate*.
> >>
> >> The InfoBarContainer view observes these notifications to construct
> >> InfoBar views for the delegates as they're added and removed.
> >>
> >> The InfoBarContainer is created and owned by the BrowserView, and has
> >> a direct communication channel with it, so the addition and removal of
> >> InfoBars from it don't need to notify the BrowserView by means of
> >> Toledo, Copenhagen and Djibouti (aka TabContentsDelegate). The
> >> BrowserView, which observes TabStripModel changes, is able to reset
> >> the InfoBarContainer every time a tab change occurs so that its state
> >> is re-validated.
> >>
> >> I plan to build this new infrastructure alongside the existing one to
> >> make things simple, converting one InfoBar type at a time.
> >>
> >> -Ben
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to