> On Feb. 19, 2011, 12:11 p.m., Benjamin Poulain wrote: > > I am not a fan of listing every option. When the author of adblock add an > > option, we will need to update the code. > > What about just one field: hasUnsupportedOption set to true if any option > > is not used by the filter? > > > > Not to mention adblock already takes its share of memory. Don't forget > > those field will be allocated for each rule.
Yeah, memory is a problem, yes. I was thinking about some possible implementation for eg the "image" or the "script" option and I started adding these booleans.. :) Switching to an "hasUnsupportedOption" check, waiting for the real option implementations. - Andrea ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/#review1504 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 19, 2011, 9:57 a.m., Andrea Diamantini wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 19, 2011, 9:57 a.m.) > > > Review request for rekonq and Benjamin Poulain. > > > Summary > ------- > > AdBlock clean up. > With this patch we explicitely allow any option that has not been (yet) fully > implemented. > > > This addresses bugs 248045, 253329 and 265909. > /show_bug.cgi?id=248045 > /show_bug.cgi?id=253329 > /show_bug.cgi?id=265909 > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/adblock/adblockrulefallbackimpl.h ec10ee5 > src/adblock/adblockrulefallbackimpl.cpp ae0e14d > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andrea > >
_______________________________________________ rekonq mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq
