Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Perhaps we should document this in the coding style guidelines. I like consistency and static member function seems like a good way to go, particularly since it matches the Class::create() pattern we often use for non-singletons. On Jan 28, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote: Class::shared() pattern seems good to me. - R. Niwa On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Benjamin Poulain benja...@webkit.org mailto:benja...@webkit.org wrote: IMHO, scoping the function by its class is cleaner. http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/179247 http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/179247 looks like an improvement to me. Benjamin On 1/28/15 11:30 AM, Chris Dumez wrote: Hi, I noticed that we are currently not very consistent in WebKit in the way we implement singleton classes instance getters. - Some classes use free functions (like MemoryCache, and PageCache until I updated it yesterday). e.g. memoryCache().xxx() - Some classes are using static functions in the class (e.g. DatabaseProcess::shared(), PluginProcess::shared()). As I said, I landed a patch yesterday so that the global page cache is now accessed via PageCache::shared() because I thought this was the currently preferred pattern (given it seems very common in WebKit2 code). However, I thought I would email webkit-dev to make sure this is actually the case and make sure we agree on a given pattern (one way or another) for current and future code. We could then maybe document this as part of our coding style. Any feedback on this matter? Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
I like the economy of the smaller non-member function name; it seems overly wordy to be constantly stating the class name as well as the nearly meaningless word “shared”. I think the word “shared” is what I like least about the member function approach. It had always thought that we used static member functions for this to replicate the pattern from Objective-C, and it seems more idiomatic modern C++ to use a free function for this kind of thing. Maciej’s point about Class::create() might be enough to convince me to change my view, though; it’s hard to see any reason the same logic wouldn’t apply in that case. — Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Gotta say, ‘singleton’ seems like a really good name for singletons. G. On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:06 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote: This is shorter: Class::singleton() It's also more consistent with the rest of our style (we usually don't put get in getter names). -Filip On Jan 28, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Jan 28, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: I like the economy of the smaller non-member function name; it seems overly wordy to be constantly stating the class name as well as the nearly meaningless word “shared”. I think the word “shared” is what I like least about the member function approach. It had always thought that we used static member functions for this to replicate the pattern from Objective-C, and it seems more idiomatic modern C++ to use a free function for this kind of thing. Maciej’s point about Class::create() might be enough to convince me to change my view, though; it’s hard to see any reason the same logic wouldn’t apply in that case. I would also find it acceptable to use free functions for all these cases. Mostly it bugs me for them to be different - the singleton case is rarer, so it seems odd to treat it as especially conciseness-worthy. Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. Regards, Maciej ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Class::unique() is one of the known names for singletons Yong Li From: Maciej Stachowiakmailto:m...@apple.com Sent: 1/28/2015 9:11 PM To: Darin Adlermailto:da...@apple.com Cc: WebKit Developmentmailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters On Jan 28, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: I like the economy of the smaller non-member function name; it seems overly wordy to be constantly stating the class name as well as the nearly meaningless word “shared”. I think the word “shared” is what I like least about the member function approach. It had always thought that we used static member functions for this to replicate the pattern from Objective-C, and it seems more idiomatic modern C++ to use a free function for this kind of thing. Maciej’s point about Class::create() might be enough to convince me to change my view, though; it’s hard to see any reason the same logic wouldn’t apply in that case. I would also find it acceptable to use free functions for all these cases. Mostly it bugs me for them to be different - the singleton case is rarer, so it seems odd to treat it as especially conciseness-worthy. Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. Regards, Maciej ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
This is shorter: Class::singleton() It's also more consistent with the rest of our style (we usually don't put get in getter names). -Filip On Jan 28, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Jan 28, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: I like the economy of the smaller non-member function name; it seems overly wordy to be constantly stating the class name as well as the nearly meaningless word “shared”. I think the word “shared” is what I like least about the member function approach. It had always thought that we used static member functions for this to replicate the pattern from Objective-C, and it seems more idiomatic modern C++ to use a free function for this kind of thing. Maciej’s point about Class::create() might be enough to convince me to change my view, though; it’s hard to see any reason the same logic wouldn’t apply in that case. I would also find it acceptable to use free functions for all these cases. Mostly it bugs me for them to be different - the singleton case is rarer, so it seems odd to treat it as especially conciseness-worthy. Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. Regards, Maciej ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
On Jan 28, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: I like the economy of the smaller non-member function name; it seems overly wordy to be constantly stating the class name as well as the nearly meaningless word “shared”. I think the word “shared” is what I like least about the member function approach. It had always thought that we used static member functions for this to replicate the pattern from Objective-C, and it seems more idiomatic modern C++ to use a free function for this kind of thing. Maciej’s point about Class::create() might be enough to convince me to change my view, though; it’s hard to see any reason the same logic wouldn’t apply in that case. I would also find it acceptable to use free functions for all these cases. Mostly it bugs me for them to be different - the singleton case is rarer, so it seems odd to treat it as especially conciseness-worthy. Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. Regards, Maciej ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. I recommend Class::instance(), which is what I've seen used almost exclusively outside of WebKit. It's what Scott Meyers used, and it's very similar to the Gang of Four's choice of Class::Instance() and the Java pattern Class.INSTANCE. That said, Class::singleton() is very attractive too. I've never seen Class::shared() used anywhere except WebKit. The first time I saw this I had no clue what it was until I looked up the implementation. All of these can get quite annoying to type, especially when the name of the class is long. (Sometimes I will keep a reference to the instance in a local variable with a shorter name.) But I think they're easier to read than free functions, and we should optimize for reading code, not writing it. Not a big deal either way. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@igalia.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. I recommend Class::instance(), which is what I've seen used almost exclusively outside of WebKit. It's what Scott Meyers used, and it's very similar to the Gang of Four's choice of Class::Instance() and the Java pattern Class.INSTANCE. I've seen this, also. It's a good name. That said, Class::singleton() is very attractive too. :-) I've never seen Class::shared() used anywhere except WebKit. The first time I saw this I had no clue what it was until I looked up the implementation. +1 All of these can get quite annoying to type, especially when the name of the class is long. (Sometimes I will keep a reference to the instance in a local variable with a shorter name.) But I think they're easier to read than free functions, and we should optimize for reading code, not writing it. Not a big deal either way. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Yes, instance() is what I’ve seen mostly outside WebKit as well. This would be my preference. Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@igalia.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. I recommend Class::instance(), which is what I've seen used almost exclusively outside of WebKit. It's what Scott Meyers used, and it's very similar to the Gang of Four's choice of Class::Instance() and the Java pattern Class.INSTANCE. That said, Class::singleton() is very attractive too. I've never seen Class::shared() used anywhere except WebKit. The first time I saw this I had no clue what it was until I looked up the implementation. All of these can get quite annoying to type, especially when the name of the class is long. (Sometimes I will keep a reference to the instance in a local variable with a shorter name.) But I think they're easier to read than free functions, and we should optimize for reading code, not writing it. Not a big deal either way. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
This may be a question of what jargon we’ve encountered, but to me, “singleton clearly means the one unique instance of this class while “instance means any instance of this class. If I hadn’t seen this thread, I would interpret Class::instance() to mean “create a brand new instance of this class” rather than “return the unique singleton instance of this class, creating if necessary. Regards, Maciej On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Chris Dumez cdu...@apple.com wrote: Yes, instance() is what I’ve seen mostly outside WebKit as well. This would be my preference. Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@igalia.com mailto:mcatanz...@igalia.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com mailto:m...@apple.com wrote: Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. I recommend Class::instance(), which is what I've seen used almost exclusively outside of WebKit. It's what Scott Meyers used, and it's very similar to the Gang of Four's choice of Class::Instance() and the Java pattern Class.INSTANCE. That said, Class::singleton() is very attractive too. I've never seen Class::shared() used anywhere except WebKit. The first time I saw this I had no clue what it was until I looked up the implementation. All of these can get quite annoying to type, especially when the name of the class is long. (Sometimes I will keep a reference to the instance in a local variable with a shorter name.) But I think they're easier to read than free functions, and we should optimize for reading code, not writing it. Not a big deal either way. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Fair enough, singleton() is very explicit indeed. I would be happy with this naming too. -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA On Jan 28, 2015, at 9:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: This may be a question of what jargon we’ve encountered, but to me, “singleton clearly means the one unique instance of this class while “instance means any instance of this class. If I hadn’t seen this thread, I would interpret Class::instance() to mean “create a brand new instance of this class” rather than “return the unique singleton instance of this class, creating if necessary. Regards, Maciej On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Chris Dumez cdu...@apple.com mailto:cdu...@apple.com wrote: Yes, instance() is what I’ve seen mostly outside WebKit as well. This would be my preference. Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@igalia.com mailto:mcatanz...@igalia.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com mailto:m...@apple.com wrote: Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. I recommend Class::instance(), which is what I've seen used almost exclusively outside of WebKit. It's what Scott Meyers used, and it's very similar to the Gang of Four's choice of Class::Instance() and the Java pattern Class.INSTANCE. That said, Class::singleton() is very attractive too. I've never seen Class::shared() used anywhere except WebKit. The first time I saw this I had no clue what it was until I looked up the implementation. All of these can get quite annoying to type, especially when the name of the class is long. (Sometimes I will keep a reference to the instance in a local variable with a shorter name.) But I think they're easier to read than free functions, and we should optimize for reading code, not writing it. Not a big deal either way. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Yeah, that is exactly what I was thinking. Instance does not imply only one like singleton does. Call a singleton a singleton, we have a word for it. — Timothy Hatcher On Jan 28, 2015, at 9:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: This may be a question of what jargon we’ve encountered, but to me, “singleton clearly means the one unique instance of this class while “instance means any instance of this class. If I hadn’t seen this thread, I would interpret Class::instance() to mean “create a brand new instance of this class” rather than “return the unique singleton instance of this class, creating if necessary. Regards, Maciej On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Chris Dumez cdu...@apple.com wrote: Yes, instance() is what I’ve seen mostly outside WebKit as well. This would be my preference. Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@igalia.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. I recommend Class::instance(), which is what I've seen used almost exclusively outside of WebKit. It's what Scott Meyers used, and it's very similar to the Gang of Four's choice of Class::Instance() and the Java pattern Class.INSTANCE. That said, Class::singleton() is very attractive too. I've never seen Class::shared() used anywhere except WebKit. The first time I saw this I had no clue what it was until I looked up the implementation. All of these can get quite annoying to type, especially when the name of the class is long. (Sometimes I will keep a reference to the instance in a local variable with a shorter name.) But I think they're easier to read than free functions, and we should optimize for reading code, not writing it. Not a big deal either way. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: This may be a question of what jargon we've encountered, but to me, singleton clearly means the one unique instance of this class while instance means any instance of this class. If I hadn't seen this thread, I would interpret Class::instance() to mean create a brand new instance of this class rather than return the unique singleton instance of this class, creating if necessary. Agreed. I also prefer Class::singleton() over Class::instance(). - R. Niwa ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebRTC in WebKit
Getting WebRTC working on WebKitGTK sounds awesome. I am a little concerned with the use of an abstraction layer as a backend. I am afraid this could lead to weird abstractions. Typically in WebKit we try to have baseline code in C++ that handles everything that can be shared between ports, and platform abstractions for everything port and/or platform specific. Using OpenWebRTC, there would be no abstractions and WebCore would just be a bridge between JavaScript and OpenWebRTC. Is that correct? Could you explain a bit why you chose to use an abstraction layer at the WebRTC level instead of interfacing directly with GStreamer at the platform abstraction level? Benjamin On 1/28/15 2:28 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: Hi Back in 2011-2012 there was some work done to implement WebRTC in WebKit by Google and Ericsson [1]. At the time, it was only the chromium port that had a WebRTC backend implemented (webrtc.org) and a fully testable implementation. As of late 2014, there is an alternative WebRTC implementation out there; OpenWebRTC [2] is an open source WebRTC framework based on GStreamer. This is an announcement that we are a group of people/companies that intend to continue the work on WebRTC in WebKit. What we would like to do is to: * Get the WebCore interfaces up to date. Quite a lot has changed in the WebRTC API since the code landed in WebCore. For example, the MediaStreamTrack has taken over most of the responsibilities previously owned by MediaStream. * Use OpenWebRTC as a WebRTC backend on the GTK+ port. Our approach would be to use a stable platform interface on a lower level than the W3C API (MediaStream API and RTCPeerConnecion) and implement the API related details in WebCore. This would allow us to let API related objects only exist in WebCore and not having to mirror them across layers. * Evaluate the feasibility of multiple back-end support (e.g. webrtc.org OpenWebRTC). This effort will involve quite a few people, including Adam Bergkvist (Ericsson), Alex Gouaillard (Temasys), Philippe Normand (Igalia) and Sebastian Dröge (Centricular). Feedback and/or help is always appreciated. BR Adam, Alex, Philippe and Sebastian [1] https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-November/018445.html [2] https://github.com/EricssonResearch/openwebrtc ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Hi, I noticed that we are currently not very consistent in WebKit in the way we implement singleton classes instance getters. - Some classes use free functions (like MemoryCache, and PageCache until I updated it yesterday). e.g. memoryCache().xxx() - Some classes are using static functions in the class (e.g. DatabaseProcess::shared(), PluginProcess::shared()). As I said, I landed a patch yesterday so that the global page cache is now accessed via PageCache::shared() because I thought this was the currently preferred pattern (given it seems very common in WebKit2 code). However, I thought I would email webkit-dev to make sure this is actually the case and make sure we agree on a given pattern (one way or another) for current and future code. We could then maybe document this as part of our coding style. Any feedback on this matter? Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
IMHO, scoping the function by its class is cleaner. http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/179247 looks like an improvement to me. Benjamin On 1/28/15 11:30 AM, Chris Dumez wrote: Hi, I noticed that we are currently not very consistent in WebKit in the way we implement singleton classes instance getters. - Some classes use free functions (like MemoryCache, and PageCache until I updated it yesterday). e.g. memoryCache().xxx() - Some classes are using static functions in the class (e.g. DatabaseProcess::shared(), PluginProcess::shared()). As I said, I landed a patch yesterday so that the global page cache is now accessed via PageCache::shared() because I thought this was the currently preferred pattern (given it seems very common in WebKit2 code). However, I thought I would email webkit-dev to make sure this is actually the case and make sure we agree on a given pattern (one way or another) for current and future code. We could then maybe document this as part of our coding style. Any feedback on this matter? Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
Class::shared() pattern seems good to me. - R. Niwa On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Benjamin Poulain benja...@webkit.org wrote: IMHO, scoping the function by its class is cleaner. http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/179247 looks like an improvement to me. Benjamin On 1/28/15 11:30 AM, Chris Dumez wrote: Hi, I noticed that we are currently not very consistent in WebKit in the way we implement singleton classes instance getters. - Some classes use free functions (like MemoryCache, and PageCache until I updated it yesterday). e.g. memoryCache().xxx() - Some classes are using static functions in the class (e.g. DatabaseProcess::shared(), PluginProcess::shared()). As I said, I landed a patch yesterday so that the global page cache is now accessed via PageCache::shared() because I thought this was the currently preferred pattern (given it seems very common in WebKit2 code). However, I thought I would email webkit-dev to make sure this is actually the case and make sure we agree on a given pattern (one way or another) for current and future code. We could then maybe document this as part of our coding style. Any feedback on this matter? Kr, -- Chris Dumez - Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA ___ webkit-dev mailing listwebkit-dev@lists.webkit.orghttps://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
