On Monday 29 December 2008 08:14:02 Paul Pedriana wrote: > FWIW, I rewrote our version of the networking back-end support to use a > generic pure-virtual interface. That way all those #ifdefs in the code went > away and the back-end requirements became clearer and easier to provide. We > are using our own http/ftp/file support that is different from libsoup, > curl, etc. An interesting result of this is that multiple back-ends can be > simultaneously active; this allows one library to support ftp while another > supports http in the case that you (like us) don't have a single library > that does both. It also allows for a clean implementation of a disk cache, > as a disk cache is merely an http handler that gets first shot at > http-provided data. Another result is that custom URI schemes (e.g. > blah://) can be transparently supported by applications, which is useful > for custom platforms and uses such as ours. > > Somebody a few weeks ago was talking about pure-virtual interfaces in > WebKit, and while my response to him was one of caution in getting carried > away with such interfaces, IMO this is a case where they are beneficial. >
Everything right, but we talk about API design and the fundamental question is if we wrap a generic interface and make it more generic or if we just expose a handle to the library.... z. _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
