On Nov 5, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Three additional thoughts:
(1) It would be best to choose the objects to apply this to in some
data-driven way.
Do you have
To update this thread: I've now got this working in the V8 bindings.
The next step is to make this work in the JSC bindings. If you're
interested in the details, the work will occur on
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101279.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov
On Nov 2, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
(3) I suspect that we can handle this without adding an IDL attribute at
all. C++ overloaded functions could let the bindings do something different
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@apple.com wrote:
01.11.2012, в 10:36, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org написал(а):
Today, we use ScriptWrappable for Nodes only, but we would benefit by
making more use of ScriptWrappable, particularly for DOM objects that
almost always
Sounds like a good idea.
For some objects, we store the wrapper
inline in the object itself by making object inherit from
ScriptWrappable. For other types of objects, we use a HashMap to
translate the object into a JavaScript wrapper.
The current situation is not either ScriptWrappable or
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Kentaro Hara hara...@google.com wrote:
...
Thanks to the recent efforts of Adam Barth, V8 bindings are going to
remove the need to enumerate all wrappers, and thus the HashMap does
not need to store all wrappers. On the other hand, what about JSC
bindings?
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Kentaro Hara hara...@google.com wrote:
...
Thanks to the recent efforts of Adam Barth, V8 bindings are going to
remove the need to enumerate all wrappers, and thus the HashMap does
not
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@apple.com wrote:
01.11.2012, в 10:36, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org написал(а):
Today, we use ScriptWrappable for Nodes only, but we would benefit by
making more use of
On the other hand, what about JSC bindings?
JSC bindings do not store the wrapper in two places.
Geoff
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com wrote:
On the other hand, what about JSC bindings?
JSC bindings do not store the wrapper in two places.
I'm not sure I fully understand your message. JSC uses
ScriptWrappable for Nodes and uses a HashMap for non-Nodes (in the
On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
We currently use two different approaches for associating JavaScript
wrappers with DOM objects. For some objects, we store the wrapper
inline in the object itself by making object inherit from
ScriptWrappable. For other types
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
We currently use two different approaches for associating JavaScript
wrappers with DOM objects. For some objects, we store the wrapper
inline in the object
12 matches
Mail list logo
