How would the class implementing ChromeClient hold any data members?
I guess we could use pimpl...
Adam
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Yong Li <yong...@torchmobile.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> ChromeClient and other clients defined in webkit are using a lot of WebCore
> objects. So it seems impossible to provide a ChromeClient from another
> binary other than webkit itself. In other words, ChromeClient is almost
> always implemented in a static lib that's linked with WebCore together.
>
> If that's true, why do we need those "virtual" functions? One reason might
> be for this case:
>
> class WebPage: public ChromeClient, public EditorClient, public ..... {
> };
>
> But I see most ports implement these clients with single classes. If we can
> make this mandatory, then we can remove these "virtual" words from these
> client interface, and then the compilers could make those functions "inline"
> whenever suitable. I guess this could boost performance a little bit.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yong Li
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
