On 17/08/2010, at 12:22 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: > >> Where-ever it goes, please don't put it on Document directly. :) >> (Feel free to tie it to Document's lifetime, just don't add to >> Document's 300+ methods.) >> >> The madness must stop... Document is long overdue for some weightloss... > > I assume Dean is suggesting that Document would gain a new data member > (DeviceMotionController?) which strikes me as a reasonable approach.
Right - either one or two (+DeviceOrientationController). I do think the controllers of both events could be a single object - but that is another discussion. If it wasn't on Document, what do you suggest otherwise? DOMWindow? Putting it on Frame but tying it to Document seems less than perfect. Dean > >> >> -eric >> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Dean Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been looking into implementing the clients for >>> DeviceOrientation/Motion Events. Currently, the controllers for these >>> events are members of Page. I think they are better suited on Document. >>> >>> Here are a few reasons: >>> >>> - Page isn't tied to any actual web page or document. Would we want to >>> share the same controller and client across multiple web pages? I don't >>> think so. >>> - Document is already the place that is listening for these events >>> - It's easy to suspend and resume the client from the Document-level when >>> the user navigates to another page, or the document enters the cache, or a >>> platform needs to temporarily suspend events for some reason. >>> - When the API is on Page, it is hidden in the WebView, from where it is >>> difficult to access. >>> - it would allow the client to live in WebCore. This avoids tweaking the >>> WebView implementations for all platforms to pass messages back and forth >>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41616 >>> >>> I assume one of the advantages of having them on Page is that it allows a >>> Mock Controller to be easily created for testing from Dump Render Tree. Am >>> I right? Is this that important? >>> >>> FWIW, Geolocation seems to take both approaches. One implementation is down >>> in Navigator/Document/DOMWindow, but the mock controller is on Page. I've >>> found the low-level approach much easier to implement. >>> >>> Thoughts? > > For this sort of thing, it seems reasonable to me that there is a layer of > the implementation that is a per-document controller, and then below that a > singleton object in case we don't need things to happen multiple times per > document. It doesn't seem especially helpful to have something happen at the > Page level, in normal operation. > > The reason it seems a singleton would be useful is that you only want to > register with the OS service once, and then multicast the relevant > notifications to all clients that are listening. > > For purposes of substituting a mock controller: > > (1) If there is a singleton beneath the per-document controllers, perhaps the > mock object can insert itself at that level. > (2) Even if the mock controller is at the per-document level, it is likely > still sufficient for most tests; it might mean a little extra work if we need > to specifically test geolocation or device motion/orientation from a subframe. > > Regards, > Maciej > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
