Bug 214371 – Remove a few more uses of the terms black/white list

• Component: New Bugs
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Darin Adler]

Remove a few more uses of the terms black/white list

[Darin Adler]

Created attachment 404375 [details]
Patch

[Alex Christensen]

Comment on attachment 404375 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=404375&action=review

Looks good except the part that adds another file read.

> Source/WTF/wtf/URLHelpers.cpp:61
> +// Cocoa has an implementation that read this from a file in /Library or ~/Library.

reads

> Source/WTF/wtf/cocoa/NSURLExtras.mm:85
> +            // FIXME: Remove this at some point after checking that no one is depending on it.

I've tried to remove this in the past and was informed that it exists only for third parties and we have no way of checking if they still use it.  There's also an optimization for it in Foundation, which we should rename at the same time.  I think we should do that instead of checking both filenames, which will significantly adversely affect startup time of many things.

[Darin Adler]

Comment on attachment 404375 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=404375&action=review

>> Source/WTF/wtf/cocoa/NSURLExtras.mm:85
>> +            // FIXME: Remove this at some point after checking that no one is depending on it.
> 
> I've tried to remove this in the past and was informed that it exists only for third parties and we have no way of checking if they still use it.  There's also an optimization for it in Foundation, which we should rename at the same time.  I think we should do that instead of checking both filenames, which will significantly adversely affect startup time of many things.

Yes, I am familiar with how this was originally used. I’m the person who added this in the first place.

But I don’t know anything about this optimization in Foundation. I’ll leave this part out of the patch based on the FUD.

[Darin Adler]

Created attachment 404378 [details]
Patch

[Alex Christensen]

Let's just do it now.  I filed rdar://problem/65622670

[Alex Christensen]

And rdar://problem/65623485

[Darin Adler]

Comment on attachment 404378 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=404378&action=review

> Source/WTF/wtf/URLHelpers.cpp:61
> +// Cocoa has an implementation that read this from a file in /Library or ~/Library.

Oops, forgot to fix "read this" to "reads this".

[Darin Adler]

Created attachment 404391 [details]
Patch

[Darin Adler]

Committed r264423: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/264423>

[Radar WebKit Bug Importer]

<rdar://problem/65627367>

[Alex Christensen]

Comment on attachment 404375 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=404375&action=review

>>> Source/WTF/wtf/cocoa/NSURLExtras.mm:85
>>> +            // FIXME: Remove this at some point after checking that no one is depending on it.
>> 
>> I've tried to remove this in the past and was informed that it exists only for third parties and we have no way of checking if they still use it.  There's also an optimization for it in Foundation, which we should rename at the same time.  I think we should do that instead of checking both filenames, which will significantly adversely affect startup time of many things.
> 
> Yes, I am familiar with how this was originally used. I’m the person who added this in the first place.
> 
> But I don’t know anything about this optimization in Foundation. I’ll leave this part out of the patch based on the FUD.

I was wrong about the optimization in Foundation.  That is just an optimization for the instantiation of an NSString, not in reading the file.  That's not important to change at the same time as this.

[Darin Adler]

I think it’s fine to either remove the feature entirely, or change the name now, or add support for both names now to lay the ground work for removing the old name later.

But I suggest we *not* use this bug to track any of those changes. This one should be left as is.

[Alex Christensen]

I think we should remove it in a separate patch, probably after the next branch.