[webkit-dev] Proposal for a new way to handle porting #ifdefs
kevino at theolliviers.com
Mon May 25 12:09:41 PDT 2009
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 <mjs at apple.com>
>>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
I definitely second this, it would be enormously helpful! :-)
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
More information about the webkit-dev