Hi Maciej,
On May 25, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 24, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]>
wrote:
I don't think it should be discounted. It might be helpful to
clarify why
you think ifdefs are a bad solution.
When I made changes that affect several ports, I try to be good
WebKit
citizen and update all the ports, but the situation we have today
makes that a pain. For example, consider the case of adding a method
to ChromeClient. I understand that I have to add the method to a
bunch of port-specific subclasses, but theses classes are stored in
slightly different locations (WebCoreSupport or WebKitSupport?), have
different naming conventions (WebChromeClient or ChromeClientGtk?),
and have different names spaces (using namespace WebCore or not?).
All these issues combine to ensure that I've screwed it up, and I
don't really have a way to test because I can't building the XYZ
port.
I just have to check in my change and pray.
Anyway, that's my rant. Are patches welcome for homogenizing some of
these idiosyncrasies?
I would be in favor, though in general we leave the WebKit layer up
to port owners. Maybe others would like to chime in.
Personally, I'd be in favor of some defined conventions that ports are
at least suggested to follow. I don't think homogenizing the Web(Kit |
Core)Support layer would be a big problem for porters, and I think
it's definitely worth doing if it makes it easier for you guys to make
changes to the ports.
In hindsight, while we used WebKitSupport for the wx port, I think
WebCoreSupport is probably the better choice, or perhaps even
WebCoreClients would be more appropriate. Regarding the file names, I
think most ports use the convention of WhateverClientPort. I think
actually the Apple ports are the only ones using the WebWhateverClient
convention. While I can go either way, I do like the
WhateverClientPort convention, myself. Regardless, if we decide on a
particular convention or guideline, I will happily update the wx port
to use it! :-)
I think one key step here will be to have a "try server" integrated
with the buildbots, so that it's at least practical to test such
patches.
I definitely second this, it would be enormously helpful! :-)
Thanks,
Kevin
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
