Bug 23023

Summary: Remove incomplete support for opportunistic apcache entries
Product: WebKit Reporter: Alexey Proskuryakov <ap>
Component: WebCore Misc.Assignee: Alexey Proskuryakov <ap>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal    
Priority: P4    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Attachments:
Description Flags
proposed patch sam: review+

Description Alexey Proskuryakov 2008-12-29 04:08:47 PST
They weren't ever really supported, but no that they were removed from the spec, we can get rid of them completely.
Comment 1 Alexey Proskuryakov 2008-12-29 04:10:55 PST
Created attachment 26289 [details]
proposed patch
Comment 2 Sam Weinig 2008-12-29 15:53:34 PST
Comment on attachment 26289 [details]
proposed patch

r=me.

> Index: WebCore/loader/appcache/ApplicationCacheResource.h
> ===================================================================
> --- WebCore/loader/appcache/ApplicationCacheResource.h	(revision 39497)
> +++ WebCore/loader/appcache/ApplicationCacheResource.h	(working copy)
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ public:
>          Explicit = 1 << 2,
>          Foreign = 1 << 3,
>          Fallback = 1 << 4,
> -        Opportunistic = 1 << 5,
> +        // Bit 5 was used for opportunistic entries, which were removed from the spec.
>          Dynamic = 1 << 6

You should note in the changelog the reason you can't change Dynamic to use bit-5.
Comment 3 David Levin 2008-12-29 16:09:44 PST
Typo in ChangeLog:

> Remove incomplete support for opportunistic apcache entries
s/apcache/appcache/
Comment 4 Darin Adler 2008-12-30 10:35:34 PST
Comment on attachment 26289 [details]
proposed patch

> -        Opportunistic = 1 << 5,
> +        // Bit 5 was used for opportunistic entries, which were removed from the spec.
>          Dynamic = 1 << 6
>      };

Why keep this comment? Why not renumber Dynamic to use bit 5?
Comment 5 Alexey Proskuryakov 2008-12-30 10:52:44 PST
Committed <http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/changeset/39514>.
Comment 6 Alexey Proskuryakov 2008-12-30 10:54:20 PST
(In reply to comment #4)
> Why keep this comment? Why not renumber Dynamic to use bit 5?

Maybe I could do that, given that neither fallback nor dynamic entries were stored before - but I'm going to bump schema version soon, which will be a good opportunity to change this.