On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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 bindings. I don't think it is >>> important to solve this problem for the JSC bindings since there is not a >>> consumer that yet needs the same. >>> >> >> The present state of Web Sockets is that they're compiled in on Mac OS X >> but disabled via the runtime setting. This leads to them being detectable >> in the manner Sam mentioned. Either the compile-time setting needs to be >> fixed for Mac OS X or the runtime code fixed so that the feature is not >> detectable when disabled. I assume that we want regression testing of the >> feature so disabling it at compile time does not seem like the best idea. I >> guess it comes down to whether or not it's in good enough shape to be useful >> to web sites at this time. >> > > I don't believe that anyone is shipping a working implementation of > WebSockets yet (or is Firefox's working now?), in which case it shouldn't > matter to have it on by default. > It matters for feature detection in the future. Once there are real implementations in the wild, those will be detected in the same way that the current implementation is detected. If the implementations aren't compatible (because one is very incomplete), then it makes the detection less reliable, and one must then resort to UA sniffing hacks. -Darin
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
