On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Michael Nordman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> +1 SecurityOrigin class >> Sounds like a reasonable plan. >> I suspect there may already be cases where we're actually comparing a >> chrome generated security origin, as produced by GURL.GetOrigin(), with a >> webkit generated security origin, as produced by >> WebSecurityOrigin.toString(). So we may want to accelerate the part of the >> plan to do more than opaquely pass around and test webkit generated >> representations. >> >> Also, I think dumi has a use case to crack it open in order to form file >> path elements of the form 'scheme_host_port' >> > > Actually, Dumi's case is slightly different. He wants to get > SecurityOrigin::databaseIdentifier, right? Maybe WebSecurityOrigin should > have a databaseIdentifier() method that outputs a FilePath object? > Dumi has such a method in a CL that he is working on at the moment. Also, note: we don't have a way to use FilePath from the WebKit API, and I'm not sure that we should. We use WebString for file paths in the WebKit API. > > ... and why not use strings? >> * does the string contain a trailing slash, or not? >> * in the default port case, does the string contain the default port >> number or not? >> > > WebCore::SecurityOrigin handles these for us. I'll make it difficult for a > base::SecurityOrigin to be constructed any way besides it coming from > WebKit::WebSecurityOrigin (which only comes from > WebCore::WebSecurityOrigin). We can then deal with these details only > if/when we need to. > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Right now, we don't have a good story for what to do with >>> WebCore::SecurityOrigins in Chromium. We now have a WebSecurityOrigin in >>> WebKit, but if you want to move the data between processes, you need to >>> convert it to a string and then send that. In some cases we then convert >>> the string to a GURL, but this seems like the wrong thing to do (more on >>> this in a sec). >>> To me, the right answer is to create a type in base called SecurityOrigin >>> that wraps a string and does equality checks. The equality checks can be >>> done as string comparisons since the WebCore::SecurityOrigin::toString() >>> method canonicalizes it. If, in the future, we need to do anything more >>> with SecurityOrigins (besides transporting them, testing equality, and using >>> them in sets/maps) then we can make the class more complex. >>> >>> Why not use GURL? For one, the SecurityOrigin has a "null" state which >>> is significant and which isn't represented in GURL. In addition, there's a >>> lot of operations you can do with a GURL which don't really make sense in >>> the context of a SecurityOrigin. Passing around a SecurityOrigin object is >>> also much more self-documenting. But, the fact that GURL looks like a >>> tempting way to store a SecurityOrigin is actually one of the biggest >>> reasons why I think we should make a dedicated type. >>> >>> If people agree with this, my plan is to create such a type in base and >>> modify WebKit::WebSecurityOrigin to do conversions to base::SecurityOrigin. >>> I'll then convert everything over (or ask people to do the conversion if it >>> looks scary). Finally, I'll remove WebSecurityOrigin::toString(). >>> >> As I mentioned in person, I'm not happy having WebKit API depend on base for too many things. I would prefer to not introduce this dependency since it is a circular dependency (in the way the respective repositories relate). Circular dependencies are evil. We have them for string16 and NullableString16. Let's not add more. -Darin > >>> Does this sound like a good plan? >>> >>> J >>> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
