[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 198181] Cookies with SameSite=None or SameSite=invalid treated as Strict

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198181

Mehmet gelisin <mehmetgelisin at aol.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mehmetgelisin at aol.com

--- Comment #47 from Mehmet gelisin <mehmetgelisin at aol.com> ---
You can't expect arbitrarily large argument lists in any implementation - generally that's not the purpose of .apply (you could use spread as well).  We also can't detect the call to push in http://www.logoarts.co.uk/  advance as we don't know we're in push until after we've already called it, and that means we have to have already copied your argument array onto the stack.

> Just noting another use-case (specifically around performance) where this limitation is... unfortunate.
> http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/ 
> If I have two arrays  and I want to merge them together, there's these options:
> 
>   A = A.concat(B)
> 
> vs https://waytowhatsnext.com/ 
>  
>   A.push.apply(A,B)
> 
> 
> The former is obviously more idiomatic, https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/  but it also has the unfortunate side-effect of creating a new merged array rather than adding onto the existing one. So, http://www.iu-bloomington.com/  if you have a "big" array A, you end up duplicating the A, and then GC throwing away the previous one.
>  http://www.slipstone.co.uk/ 
> In those cases, the `A.push.apply(A,B)` would be more ideal since it modifies A in place, which prevents the memory duplication and prevents the GC'ing.
> 
> But now, obviously, the size of B is limited to ~65k items.
> http://embermanchester.uk/
> That still is sorta OK if A is "big" but B is, relatively speaking, "small". But it is still highly unfortunate that http://connstr.net/  code would have to know implementation-dependent limits on such things.
> 
> I wonder if it would  be possible for an implementation http://joerg.li/  to detect such an push.apply(..) case and handle it more gracefully to work-around the limitation of how many http://www.jopspeech.com/  params can be passed. It could see "wow, B is really big, we can't pass it in all at once, but we can rewrite it internally to the rough equivalent of..." http://www.wearelondonmade.com/ 
> 
> A.push.apply(A,B) -->
>  http://www.compilatori.com/
> for (var len=B.length, s = 0, m; s<len; ) {
>    m = Math.min(s+65000,len);
>    A.push.apply(A,B.slice(s,m)); http://www-look-4.com/
>    s = m;

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/attachments/20210911/eb52b817/attachment.htm>