Bug 113272

Summary:

[BlackBerry] Populate the mime type of the WebContext for images

Product:

WebKit

Reporter:

Arvid Nilsson <anilsson>

Component:

WebKit BlackBerry

Assignee:

Arvid Nilsson <anilsson>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

Severity:

Normal

CC:

anilsson, jpetsovits, jrogers, mifenton, rwlbuis, staikos, tonikitoo, webkit.review.bot

Priority:

Version:

528+ (Nightly build)

Hardware:

Unspecified

OS:

Unspecified

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Patch	none
Patch	none

Arvid Nilsson

Reported 2013-03-25 21:13:25 PDT

PR 278967

Attachments
Patch (2.72 KB, patch) 2013-03-25 21:20 PDT, Arvid Nilsson	no flags	Details Formatted Diff Diff
Patch (3.35 KB, patch) 2013-03-26 11:24 PDT, Arvid Nilsson	no flags	Details Formatted Diff Diff
Show Obsolete (1) View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.

Arvid Nilsson

Comment 1 2013-03-25 21:20:52 PDT

Created attachment 194994 [details] Patch

George Staikos

Comment 2 2013-03-26 07:30:29 PDT

Comment on attachment 194994 [details] Patch This looks really hacky. Is this the best way to achieve this result?

Arvid Nilsson

Comment 3 2013-03-26 07:32:19 PDT

(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 194994 [details]) > This looks really hacky. Is this the best way to achieve this result? My thinking is that this is better than using the one in ResourceResponse, because the server could be misconfigured and report broken or no mime type.

Arvid Nilsson

Comment 4 2013-03-26 07:32:59 PDT

So even though context.setMimetype(cachedImage->response().mimeType()) is a lot less code, I'm worried it's less reliable.

George Staikos

Comment 5 2013-03-26 07:58:38 PDT

(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (From update of attachment 194994 [details] [details]) > > This looks really hacky. Is this the best way to achieve this result? > > My thinking is that this is better than using the one in ResourceResponse, because the server could be misconfigured and report broken or no mime type. Shouldn't we take the server-issued one if it is issued, and if not, then try to put our own in?

Arvid Nilsson

Comment 6 2013-03-26 11:08:32 PDT

(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > (From update of attachment 194994 [details] [details] [details]) > > > This looks really hacky. Is this the best way to achieve this result? > > > > My thinking is that this is better than using the one in ResourceResponse, because the server could be misconfigured and report broken or no mime type. > > Shouldn't we take the server-issued one if it is issued, and if not, then try to put our own in? I had it that way originally, let me put it back in =)

Arvid Nilsson

Comment 7 2013-03-26 11:24:42 PDT

Created attachment 195125 [details] Patch

Arvid Nilsson

Comment 8 2013-03-27 05:42:04 PDT

Comment on attachment 195125 [details] Patch Thanks, George =)

WebKit Review Bot

Comment 9 2013-03-27 17:01:14 PDT

Comment on attachment 195125 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 195125 Committed r147024: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/147024>

WebKit Review Bot

Comment 10 2013-03-27 17:01:18 PDT

All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.