El mar, 29-11-2011 a las 21:42 +0100, Gustavo Noronha Silva escribió: > > > +1 to this approach; it is the most flexible and the least confusing. > > > The idea of handing the actual Soup objects to the browser seemed great > > > to me when I started down that path, but it turned out to be really > > > difficult to make it work. > > > > I'm also wondering whether we should rename it to something like > > WebKitURIRequest/WebKitURIResponse (following the C API) or > > WebKitResourceRequest/WebKitResourceResponse (following WebCore), to > > avoid using the work Network which is confusing, because the URI of a > > request/response might be a local file. > > I think your reasoning is sound. I'd favor following WebCore.
I already renamed it as WebKitURIRequest/Response, following WebKit2 style. -- Carlos Garcia Campos http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF3D322D0EC4582C3
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ webkit-gtk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-gtk
