On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Rouslan Solomakhin < rouslan+web...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> I'd rather not add another subclass. That's even worse than >> modifying DocumentMarkerDetails IMO because this new subclass >> of DocumentMarkerDetails can't be shared among multiple markers. >> >> It seems okay for each DocumentMarker to directly have an identifier >> although we might want to if-def it depending on how big that identifier is. >> > > I think that DocumentMarkers will not be able to share the identifiers, > because I would like a unique identifier for each DocumentMarker. > That's why I'm suggesting it to add it to DocumentMarker. Please don't make DocumentMarkerDetails unsharable in some cases. I would like to keep the options open and use a String to store the > identifier. The longest identifier that I can think up is a SHA-512 hash. > This hash is 64 bytes long, or around 100 ASCII characters in Base64 > encoding. Is this identifier too large? > Definitely too big. Please don't do that. unsigned or uint64_t identifiers should be sufficient for this. - R. Niwa
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev