Bug 79854

Summary: [Refactoring] Shadow related attach paths should be in ShadowTree.
Product: WebKit Reporter: Hajime Morrita <morrita>
Component: DOMAssignee: Hajime Morrita <morrita>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: shinyak
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 77503    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch rniwa: review+

Hajime Morrita
Reported 2012-02-28 18:04:27 PST
Some shadow related code is remaining in Element.cpp, which better live in ShadowTree.
Attachments
Patch (9.51 KB, patch)
2012-02-28 23:00 PST, Hajime Morrita
rniwa: review+
Hajime Morrita
Comment 1 2012-02-28 23:00:39 PST
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 2 2012-02-28 23:14:51 PST
Comment on attachment 129395 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=129395&action=review r=me provided comments below are addressed. > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:13 > + Even after this change, there are some storange looking parts in ShadowTree attachment. Nit: s/storange/strange/. But what is "strange" about them? Could you be more explicit? > Source/WebCore/dom/ContainerNode.cpp:770 > + attachAsNode(); I don't think this is a good change. Node::attach() is much clearer. > Source/WebCore/dom/ContainerNode.cpp:779 > - Node::detach(); > + detachAsNode(); Ditto.
Hajime Morrita
Comment 3 2012-02-28 23:48:30 PST
Considering code is polished enough, I expect next round will fine final ;-)
Shinya Kawanaka
Comment 4 2012-02-29 00:09:44 PST
Comment on attachment 129395 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=129395&action=review > Source/WebCore/dom/ContainerNode.cpp:777 > + detachChildren(); This means detaching children twice? We should remove for-loop?
Hajime Morrita
Comment 5 2012-02-29 00:09:57 PST
Shinya Kawanaka
Comment 6 2012-02-29 00:11:38 PST
Comment on attachment 129395 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=129395&action=review > Source/WebCore/dom/ShadowTree.cpp:176 > + this empty line is not necessary.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.