Summary: | WebCore::cookies, WebCore::setCookies and WebCore::cookiesEnabled need access to the WebCore::Document | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Holger Freyther <zecke> | ||||
Component: | Platform | Assignee: | Nobody <webkit-unassigned> | ||||
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | ap, hausmann, mjs | ||||
Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | Qt | ||||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||
OS: | OS X 10.4 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Holger Freyther
2007-12-23 15:19:02 PST
Created attachment 18078 [details]
add WebCore::Document to the cookie functions
This adds WebCore::Document as the first parameter to the WebCore cookie functions. This allows the Qt port to access the QNetworkAccessManager.
Comment on attachment 18078 [details]
add WebCore::Document to the cookie functions
r=me
Not really disagreeing with Maciej's r+ here, but seeing Document* as a setCookie() parameter is rather confusing to me. Perhaps it would be better to pass FrameLoader or even FrameLoaderClient? (In reply to comment #3) > Not really disagreeing with Maciej's r+ here, but seeing Document* as a > setCookie() parameter is rather confusing to me. Perhaps it would be better to > pass FrameLoader or even FrameLoaderClient? When it comes to the Frame constellation of objects, we never want to pass around sub-objects like FrameLoader. FrameLoader is really only the loader aspect of the frame. So you'd want to pass either Frame or Document. I think Document is the right one. Comment on attachment 18078 [details]
add WebCore::Document to the cookie functions
This patch no longer applies cleanly, and since it's a git patch and not Subversion, I can't easily figure out what Subversion version it's based on.
So I'm not landing it today. I would have landed it otherwise.
I know it's easier for the Qt hackers to supply git patches since you are using git, but perhaps you could do the additional work to supply them in a form that identifies the base Subversion revision. I know that's possible because the folks here at Apple using git are posting patches that don't show any sign of their git origins.
Landed in revision 29566 |