For anyone still interested in this issue, change sets for WebKit and
Chromium are available here:
http://codereview.chromium.org/220010 (WebKit)
http://codereview.chromium.org/225012 (Chromium)
Thanks,
Marshall
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Marshall Greenblatt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 200
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Marshall Greenblatt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
>> You can probably make the case on bugs.webkit.org for a change like this
>> to HistoryItem by observing that Apple's WebKit API also has a similar
>> LoadRequest method that al
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> You can probably make the case on bugs.webkit.org for a change like this
> to HistoryItem by observing that Apple's WebKit API also has a similar
> LoadRequest method that allows for request headers to be set.
> It makes for stronger justific
You can probably make the case on bugs.webkit.org for a change like this to
HistoryItem by observing that Apple's WebKit API also has a similar
LoadRequest method that allows for request headers to be set.
It makes for stronger justification for a change to WebCore when you can
express your argumen
WebHistoryItem is a thin wrapper around WebCore::HistoryItem. So, you would
need to change WebCore::HistoryItem. I don't know if this is something that
would be accepted upstream or not. Perhaps a WebCore::HistoryItem should
just hold a WebCore::ResourceRequest.
-Darin
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Marshall
> Greenblatt wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Adam Langley wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Marshall
> >> Greenblatt wrote:
> >> > We currently have the ability to set extra HTT
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Marshall
Greenblatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Adam Langley wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Marshall
>> Greenblatt wrote:
>> > We currently have the ability to set extra HTTP header fields in
>> > WebURLRequest. However, the extra HTTP h
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Adam Langley wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Marshall
> Greenblatt wrote:
> > We currently have the ability to set extra HTTP header fields in
> > WebURLRequest. However, the extra HTTP header fields are not stored in
> > WebHistoryItem and are therefore
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Marshall
Greenblatt wrote:
> We currently have the ability to set extra HTTP header fields in
> WebURLRequest. However, the extra HTTP header fields are not stored in
> WebHistoryItem and are therefore lost after navigation. This is a problem
> for applications tha
