On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Brett Wilson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> That said, this plan was based on the premise that Chromium folks were >>>>> willing to cooperate with the unforking effort, and would be happy to >>>>> use a >>>>> WebKit-integrated URL library based on GoogleURL. If that is no longer >>>>> the >>>>> case, then certainly we should not proceed on a false premise. >>>> >>>> I've been talking a bit with Benjamin about this topic off-list. I'm >>>> hopeful that with some careful attention to dependencies and >>>> interfaces, Chromium will be able to use WTFURL in place of GoogleURL. >>> >>> I still think it is a bit backwards for Chromium's network stack to depend >>> on WebKit, >>> but I remain open minded about this. I'm curious how it will work out. >> >> The general approach I had in mind was to view WTFURL as a separate >> library that just happens to be hosted at svn.webkit.org. That >> requires some careful managing of dependencies but it seems worth >> trying. > > I don't really want to reopen this debate, but how is that different > than checking GoogleURL into webkit? Maciej was saying that this would > impose an unacceptable burden on WebKit developers. I'm wondering what > his specific complaints about burden are and whether they might also > apply to a standalone WTFURL class. > > For example, if Maciej is concerned about coding style, we can easily > fix that either way and it's a non-issue. If the concern is > familiarity, I'm not sure I see the difference between "Adam > reimplementing WTFURL" and "using some existing code" since they're > both "new code" from the perspective of average WebKit contributors.
I don't think anyone is expecting to implement new URL code from scratch. The proposals that were put forward are, as I understand them: (1) Check in GoogleURL as-is into the ThirdParty directory as an external dependency; future maintenance would be done via the canonical GoogleURL repository. (2) Check in GoogleURL as a proper part of WebKit, adapting its coding style and wrapping it in a way that works well with other WebKit/WTF data types. The issue is not new code or not, but the ability to maintain it going forward. > I'm asking because I suspect Maciej's main concern is control over the > library and dependencies and the ability to easily make changes > necessary for Apple and WebKit (I would be worried about this, too). That's exactly it. > From my perspective, however, this might imply that he would want the > ability in the future to make modifications and add dependencies that > would be nonstarters with respect to Chromium's requirements. The > normal answer (which I agree with) when some random port wants to do > something weird and be able to compile without, for example, > JavaScript, is that "WebKit doesn't support these one-off use cases, > take the whole thing" and we should agree that this reasoning wouldn't > apply to dependencies on the URL component. > > I think there was some agreement last year when the first part of this > project happened. If we restart it, I would want to again make sure > that everybody really understands what our dependency requirements are > and agree that we're not going to be changing them because it's better > for the "WebKit community" (c.f. Joe Mason's request to use all of > WTF). I also worry that this will be a 9 month project for Adam, as > the current partially done parsing thing took longer than anybody > would have liked. Personally I would prefer Adam spend time fixing my > security bugs :) So I want to be explicit on what Apple perceives as > the benefit of "Adam writes a bunch of new well-tested code with no > dependencies" vs. "copy existing well-tested code with no dependencies > into third_party and possibly reformat" so we can make sure there are > no surprises later. I think that, at this point, Benjamin is volunteering to do the bulk of work and Adam is offering to help. The code would be more along the lines of reformatting and refactoring than "write[ing] a bunch of new code" as I understand it. I understand your concern about wanting to keept his code free of unwanted dependencies. However, we do already have a pretty hard boundary that WTF can't depend on anything higher in the stack. We could make WTFURL even more restricted if that was necessary or helpful. However, I think most of us who do not work on Chromium are not clear on what exactly the dependency constraints are. It would be helpful if you or Adam or someone else could document them. Let's take some specific examples. Would using WTF::Vector inside the implementation (not necessarily at the API boundary, just internally) be acceptable? Or would it be required to use C arrays or std::vector? Would using WTF's ASSERT family of macros be acceptable, or should some other form of asserts be used? The are examples I can think of where "dependencies" could simply be added in the course of trying to get the code to be in WebKit style. > > That said, I am quite supportive of you unification work for the > benefit of WebKit! Great to hear it. Thanks, Maciej _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
