Yup. I am not saying we need to get rid of all of it immediately; just put some comments in the header so that we don't use it *more*..... Mike
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Feng Qian <[email protected]> wrote: > CppBindingClass was started for test_shell if I remember correctly, > and I think the functionality can be replaced by using NPAPI instead. > I had an implementation of replacing CppBindingClass by NPAPI in > test_shell (to avoid two implementations for JSC and V8), I don't > remember where the code went. > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Mike Belshe <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've felt this way for a while, and I figured I'd throw it out to see if > we > > all agree. > > I'm hoping we can deprecate CppBindingClass. At this point, most > extensions > > are better served (I think!) via the v8::extension facility than the > > CppBindingObject. If there are cases where this isn't true, I'd happily > > work on v8::extension to make it so it could be. > > If nobody objects, I hope we can agree to stop adding any new > > CppBindingClass based bindings, and then over time get rid of > > CppBindingObject altogether. > > Anyone feel strongly in opposition? > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
