Hi everyone!
I recently joined the Chrome team at Google and have been tasked with
making window.localStorage work within Chromium. I've spent a good
deal of time trying to understand how Chromium and WebKit interact,
how the current WebKit localStorage implementation works, and thinking
about
I'm not sure how, but if it were me, I'd find an event that was similar to
what I wanted to do and trace it through the code base to figure out how it
works.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Anand Patil anand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Similar to onload, onclick etc I would like to add new
For context, the discussion started here:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25436
Alexey Proskuryakov said:
Maybe it would make sense to discuss this on the mailing list in
order to determine whether this should be a model for other projects
potentially using WebKit in multi-process
That makes perfect sense. Sorry about the confusion. :-)
J
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 1, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For context, the discussion started here:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25436
Alexey Proskuryakov
stopped working simply because I hadn't visited the site in a while.
J
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@google.com wrote:
The way I see it, there's 2 uses for AppCache in the mobile space:
Simply speeding things up (i.e. just a cache) and web applications you'd
like to use
Good point. Tying the apps together is pretty important. What good is it
for the program to still be in AppCache if it's data (in databases or
localStorage) was deleted by some other LRU policy?
I'm not sure that yet another manifest is needed though. For databases and
localStorage, access is
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@google.com wrote:
Good point. Tying the apps together is pretty important. What good is
it
for the program to still be in AppCache if it's data (in databases
2009/5/6 Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org
06.05.2009, в 23:09, Michael Nordman написал(а):
There is no means for the system to distinguish between these two
cases. There is no API to indicate which use is which.
The first use case (just speeding things up) sounds like something that
I'm continuing to work on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25376 and
noticed that the map of origins to localStorageAreas is owned by the
PageGroup class. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what exactly
page groups are used for.
I looked through the code and the wiki but couldn't
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
On May 7, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm continuing to work on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25376 and
noticed that the map of origins to localStorageAreas is owned by the
PageGroup class. I'm having
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
On May 7, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm continuing to work on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25376 and
noticed that the map of origins
Is anyone here dead set against window.sessionStorage ever being written out
to disk (in an unencrypted form)?
Session storage needs to be stored for the life of the Page class since the
user can always navigate back to a site or hit the back button. This means
that a very long lived tab could
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Christian Dywan christ...@twotoasts.dewrote:
Heya,
inspired by bug 25629 [1] I came to wonder how far webkit applications
are able to control HTML5 local storage and databases. The bug report
is mainly about enabling or disabling these features.
So how far
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 12:18 AM, Meryl Silverburgh wrote:
Hi,
Does webkit cache squirrelfish bytecode? For example, multiple can use
the same javascript file (e.g. common javascript libraries, like
jquery, or same
I've been researching, prototyping, and generally thinking about
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25376 for a while now. I think I
now know what needs to be done and the least painful way to get there. I've
written up a design doc which is available here:
I'm pretty confused by the policy decisions in DOM Storage with respect to
private browsing.
When in private browsing, both LocalStorage and SessionStorage return
QUOTA_EXCEEDED_ERR whenever setItem() is called and simply ignore
removeItem() and clear() calls. This is different from the behavior
think it should be pretty easy to handle these differences in a
clean manner.
Thanks,
Jeremy
[1] https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-May/007684.html
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Brady Eidson beid...@apple.com wrote:
On May 20, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm pretty
this decision.
J
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Thanks a lot for the quick response. This does clear up a lot for me.
Hopefully I'll send my first DOM Storage re-factoring [1] patch out in a
day or two. Once the re-factoring is squared away, I'll try
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
Following up on this, I had a question about the best way to enable the
implementation of SharedWorkerRepository to vary for different platforms.
I'd like to provide a default WebKit implementation, but on Chromium we'll
This is _exactly_ the use case SessionStorage was developed for. :-)
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
I believe HTML 5’s sessionStorage is intended to resolve this issue.
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing
Note that Chromium uses the same binary/libraries for the render process and
the browser process, which means that the decision can't be made in compile
time for us.
There might be ways (like what you mentioned) to allow the compiler to skip
all the virtual stuff for implementations where the
the same speed it
used to. (I made an ad-hoc benchmark so I could double check such things.)
SoI'm really not sure all of this trickery makes sense for what I'm
working on, but it might be necessary elsewhere.
J
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Sam Weinig sam.wei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
The common case is definitely that we know whether we want the proxy (for
IPC) or the implementation at compile time. In some cases (like Chromium
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Sam Weinig sam.wei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
The common case is definitely that we know whether we want the proxy
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
To clarify, I'm saying that your question made me realize that we
probably
can make a hard split between the frontend and backend code (i.e. what
would
live in a sandbox and handle page rendering and what wouldn't
, and the times don't
really change with my new implementation which does use virtual dispatch.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:00 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Did you say partly because it's more complicated than just splitting one
class (and only having 1-way sync communication)? If so, then we're still
on the same page
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 26, 2009, at 7:00 PM, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
This will work fine for appcache and localstorage, but isn't sufficient
for workers since the same caller gets different objects depending on which
process this is
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 27, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Did you say partly because it's more
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Did you say
I think it was pretty clear from the thread that X and XClient is prefered
when you have 2 way communication. In some cases, you have X which is the
interface, XImpl which is the implementation, and XProxy for a proxy.
But yeahI think Foo and FooClient is the way to go with Impl and Proxy
if
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
Can you think of a more specific way to describe the reationship than
front and back or client and service? Does one of the Gang of
Four
Design Patterns apply? That can be a good resource for clear ways to
HaKitchen/Counter were an attempt to push thinking in the right
direction, not a real suggestion.
Agree that this is a rat hole and it we need to move on.
Still think Frontend/Backend is the clearest thing despite being used in a
different manner in some other places and despite
I have 2 questions about SecurityOrigins.
First of all, in SecurityOrigin::databaseIdentifier() (in
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebCore/page/SecurityOrigin.h) the
following comment appears: Serialize the security origin for storage in the
database. This format is deprecated and should
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
If this is the only issue, the parsing code could work around it. There
are
3 parts to the identifier: the protocol (should never have
FYI: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26143
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
If this is the only issue
For what it's worth, I definitely think a tool like reitveld would help the
code review process. Inline comments and more context than the couple lines
the diff provides are really, really helpful.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
Sorry in advance for the
I actually had exact the same question (but never got around to asking it).
Given that pthreads' implementation is more strict, it'd seem like mutexes
are not supposed to be reentrant. Maybe the windows version should ASSERT
on reentrancy when in debug mode?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM,
' code,
sooner or later it'll cause very cryptic bugs, especially since developers
with Windows background take reentrancy of critical section for granted.
Dmitry
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I actually had exact the same question (but never got
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:22 PM, David Goehrig d...@nexttolast.com wrote:
Hello Webkitties,
Let me say, congratulations on getting so close to having real HTML5
support. While there are still some rough edges, Webkit has been making
some huge strides towards making the web a nice place to
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Joe Mason joe.ma...@torchmobile.comwrote:
Mark Rowe wrote:
On 2009-06-11, at 15:16, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com mailto:
o...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe mr...@apple.com
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Joe Mason joe.ma...@torchmobile.comwrote:
Mark Rowe wrote:
On 2009-06-11, at 15:16, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com mailto:
o
The license is assigned on a per-file basis and can be found at the top of
the file.
2009/6/12 David Jones ds...@163.com
well, is there a doc about that?
or, could you describe it more detailedly ? I want to know which part is
under BSD, LGPL and so on.
I don't find a license illustration in
Rietveld doesn't really support any flags, right?
It seems like they could be added in without too much effort though.
Mondrian (its closed source parent) does.
J
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Eric Seidel e...@webkit.org wrote:
It would appear bugzilla is too lame to support changing flag
IANAL (and correct me if I'm wrong), but
1) Parts of WebKit are licensed under the LGPL
2) Even if you're not modifying (or copying code from) files licensed under
the LGPL, any files linked to those LGPL files are governed by the LGPL
3) Presumably you're going to distribute binaries that
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
Since this seems to have become the new bikeshed, I'll chime in with my
color preference:
Reviewed by John Smith (jsm...@webkit.org)
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456
Fix WebKit being not awesome
To be more clear: Rietveld + gcl (the way Chromium does reviews/checkins)
has you specify a group of files which is called a change list. Part of
each change list is a description. Reviewers use and critique this
description, which is much like what's done with the ChangeLog.
Nothing lists out
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 3, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Nothing lists out the modified functions like in your ChangeLog, but I
guess that's just not something people commonly need.
I often search for old relevant changes
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Justin Haygood jhayg...@reaktix.comwrote:
- Original Message - From: Benjamin Meyer b...@meyerhome.net
To: WebKit Development webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] Git Familiarity (was ChangeLog)
Please use webkit-h...@lists.webkit.org
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:36 PM, deuxliquid deuxliq...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have just installed Gtk-2.16.0 on my computer. Next, I must install
webkit that base Gtk but I am not able. It seems Webkit is too big(?) so
that it has number of errors.
WebKit has a high bar for code reviews. It's rarely possible to do a high
quality code review on huge patches. This is one of the reasons developing
in the open (not writing all the code and then trying to get it committed)
is advantageous.
I don't really see why such bindings (as cool as they
This makes me very, very, very happy. :-)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote:
Dear WebKiteurs,
In our persisting quest to be more like a common WebKit port, we have
added Chromium build files to the tree this afternoon. These files are
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Kevin Ollivier kev...@theolliviers.comwrote:
Hi David,
On Jul 10, 2009, at 11:06 AM, David Kilzer wrote:
So, does anyone think this would be a bad idea, or have any
alternate suggestions on how to improve things?
What about adding support for waf to
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Ollivier kev...@theolliviers.comwrote:
Hi Jeremy,
On Jul 10, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
[snip]
Your argument makes sense if WebKit is only built for one
platform/build-system. Unfortunately it's not. So the question is whether
it's
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Adam Treat tr...@kde.org wrote:
On Friday 10 July 2009 12:23:50 am Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Dear WebKiteurs,
In our persisting quest to be more like a common WebKit port, we have
added Chromium build files to the tree this afternoon. These files are
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
I agree. We should formalize this as policy too in my opinion. Maybe
something time-based, e.g., if
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM, David Hyatt hy
I'm adding a bunch of the GYP experts to this thread and re-naming it for
sanity's sake. :-)
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
If you're willing to give it a shot, then that sounds like a fine idea.
- Maciej
On Jul 15, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Ryan
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Roland Steiner rolandstei...@google.comwrote:
I definitely like the general idea, but I don't think a NeverNull template
is worth it in the general case, for the following reasons:
First, I don't hink you can catch even a meaningful subset of all cases of
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM, David Kilzerddkil...@webkit.org wrote:
Bugzilla has the ability to create additional 4-state flags at both the
attachment
I think logging to all connected pages' console is fine for now, but I think
Michael's suggestion (or something similar) should be implemented in the not
too distant future. Definitely before shared workers are allowed to
communicate with each other.
J
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Michael
Have you looked at WebKitTools/Scripts/bugzilla-tool? There's a lot of
overlap between what it does and what you do, but there are definitely (very
cool) features in yours that it doesn't have.
Maybe you or someone else could try pulling some of this logic into
bugzilla-tool? Both are written in
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Harry Underwood wrote:
Thanks for the link. Didn't even know that WebGL is being considered by
WebKit.
What Oliver showed you is patches to pretty much fully implement it, done
by an
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:58 PM, Harry Underwood wrote:
Thanks very much for the explanations, everyone. Sorry about the long chain
of questions, but I wanted to form a FAQ-type basis for future questions
regarding the
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Eric Seidel e...@webkit.org wrote:
Didn't we just have a thread about this a couple weeks ago, and decided
that it's better if the Compiler checked/documented this sort of thing?
Oliver had worked on some classes to enforce null checking iirc...
This is
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Joseph Pecoraro joepec...@gmail.comwrote:
On Aug 21, 2009, at 8: 32PM, Darin Adler wrote:
I’m a little irritated that we’re changing our Subversion scripts,
svn-create-patch, svn-apply, and svn-unapply into WebKit-specific scripts.
Previously, they were
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Mark Rowe mr...@apple.com wrote:
On 2009-08-27, at 12:57, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:43 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org
wrote:
fwiw, I know that the
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Brady Eidson beid...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 28, 2009, at 12:18 PM, George Staikos wrote:
On 26-Aug-09, at 2:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Detailed descriptions, bug links, test instructions, and a
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
18.09.2009, в 12:24, Jeremy Orlow написал(а):
I'm not sure if we've hit any compatibility issues with this yet, but it
seems quite plausible that someone would compare window.localStorage (or
sessionStorage
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Alexey
A first pass could just handle anything that can serialize to JSON. I
believe this is more or less what FireFox supports at the moment and gets
you half the way there.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
There is this:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Sam Weinig sam.wei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Sam Weinig sam.wei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
not
change the build configuration when promoting a build.
Jeremy Orlow said said (in an earlier email):
I'm also going to send mail to chromium-dev proposing that we never ship
anything but a dev channel browser with such experimental features
compiled in for the reasons we've discussed here
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Mark Rowe mr...@apple.com wrote:
On 2009-10-05, at 21:48, Darin Fisher wrote:
It is a matter of our process that we do not change the configuration when
promoting builds. The bits that passed the test get promoted.
I'm happy to absorb this cost in the V8
k
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Did this ever get linked from the home page?
Nope. The web site is in SVN. Go ahead and file a bug and attach a patch.
:)
Adam
This only works when you set the commit-queue+ bit. Currently, the
convention is that people without commit access set commit-queue? to signal
that they'd like a reviewer to commit-queue+ it when they r+ it. Sometimes
reviewers will go so far as to commit-queue+ it unless they see a
FYI, this was filed some time ago:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=3527
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21960
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ben Goodger b...@google.com wrote:
I agree. I would like to retain this mode of selection in Windows
Chrome at least. I
My thinking is that we should be consistent. And given that passing a raw
pointer is equal to or faster than passing a PassRefPtr it seems to me that
we should just do that whenever ownership isn't being transfered. Note that
this is what's done in the majority of cases I've seen and it's what
Did try svn blaming it and looking at the corresponding changelog entry?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Yong Li yong.li.web...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, All,
Why there are #if 0 here? First, I'm told #if 0 is not webkit style.
Second, the disabled code seems useful.
void
It's so easy to have code that builds on one platform but not another. Even
if the try servers were only builders to begin with, I think they'd provide
a lot of value to the project.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Kenneth Christiansen
kenneth.christian...@openbossa.org wrote:
I think that
That sounds good to me.
As for the security issues: It seems like we could build code from anyone
but only run the tests from committers.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Mark Rowe mr...@apple.com wrote:
1) People are
or the build procedure in one of the
vcproj's?
On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
That sounds good to me.
As for the security issues: It seems like we could build code from anyone
but only run the tests from committers.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org
, based on what we decide the policy
to be.
On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
It's so easy to have code that builds on one platform but not another.
Even if the try servers were only builders to begin with, I think they'd
provide a lot of value to the project.
On Thu, Nov 12
*cc'ing others involved in WebSockets (server and client side)
I'm not very familiar with the IETF's efforts, but my understanding is that
they were creating a competing protocol. Are they in fact creating
something that they want to submit as a replacement to WebSockets? If so,
why is
for a wire protocol, the Web Socket Protocol, available from the IETF
at the following location:
- WebSocket Protocol Internet-Draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
*cc'ing others
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm not very familiar with the IETF's efforts, but my understanding is
that they were creating a competing protocol. Are they in fact creating
something that they want to submit
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm not very familiar with the IETF's efforts, but my understanding is
that they were creating a competing
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm not very familiar with the IETF's
I don't buy that at all. There's plenty of features with the webkit- prefix
and I think it's pretty clear to developers what that means.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
By using webkit-ws/webkit-wss we're giving
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
15.11.2009, в 17:18, Yuzo Fujishima написал:
Reason 1: It connotes that the feature is experimental. That means there
will be less developers seriously use that feature. Without serious use,
we'll have less
I think 3 sounds best. 4 seems reasonable. If we need to go with 1 or 2,
we should talk to Mozilla to decide whether to standardize on the x or use
our own prefixes.
If we go with option 3, I think a WebKit blog post would be a good way to
make out intentions for WebSockets clear.
On Wed, Nov
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
On 30.11.2009, at 9:55, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
If we really want to move the Web platform forward, we can't afford a
feedback
cycle this long.
Per http://webkit.org/projects/goals.html, it doesn't seem that we
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Reading this, I am reminded of a great commentary by Alex Russell,
written nearly 3 years ago:
http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/2007/12/the-w3c-cannot-save-us/
Despite
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com wrote:
There are a lot of people inside Google that have a lot of experience
with web standards, browsers, and web apps that seem to think this is useful
and worth the effort to experiment with it.
Who exactly inside Google is
Does anyone have a link to the spec?
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Dmitry Titov wrote:
I don't think it's correct to say that SharedWorkers are not useful and we
need a SharedScript instead. They are different things and
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:29 PM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Dmitry Titov wrote:
That also pretty much means if we won't do SharedScript, we'll need to
explore other opportunities toward
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
Sorry, I think you misunderstand. The way Chrome processes are divided is
an implementation detail, but it is an important one. I think it is folly
to ignore it when designing web APIs. We'll likely *never* implement APIs
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Dmitry Titov dim...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
By the way, we could enable the SharedScript programming model at much
lower WebKit-level implementation cost and with much less API surface as
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
Sorry, I think you misunderstand. The way Chrome processes are divided is
an implementation detail
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
Has anyone really sat down and compared the use cases given in the spec
to the behaviour of users? eg. to see if the model you're talking about
would actually provide any real benefit in real world usage
The spec was
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
