Bug 83943 – Add V8 code generation support for MessagePorts attributes.

• Component: New Bugs
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Greg Billock]

Add V8 code generation support for MessagePorts attributes.

[Greg Billock]

Created attachment 137145 [details]
Patch

[Greg Billock]

Context: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83634

The approach here adds a "MessagePortArray" attribute for special handling of Array return types which are message port arrays. See also http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebCore/bindings/v8/custom/V8MessageEventCustom.cpp

[Adam Barth]

Comment on attachment 137145 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=137145&action=review

> Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/TestSerializedScriptValueInterface.idl:37
> +        readonly attribute [MessagePortArray] Array ports;

This looks pretty good, but I wonder if we should just use the type "MessagePortArray" instead of "Array".  Then we wouldn't need to introduce a new IDL attribute.

[Adam Barth]

Greg, I'm about to go on vacation for two weeks, but hopefully Kentaro will be able to work with you on this patch.

[Kentaro Hara]

Comment on attachment 137145 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=137145&action=review

>> Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/TestSerializedScriptValueInterface.idl:37
>> +        readonly attribute [MessagePortArray] Array ports;
> 
> This looks pretty good, but I wonder if we should just use the type "MessagePortArray" instead of "Array".  Then we wouldn't need to introduce a new IDL attribute.

Greg: Same comment. Would you update the patch?

[Greg Billock]

Comment on attachment 137145 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=137145&action=review

>>> Source/WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/TestSerializedScriptValueInterface.idl:37
>>> +        readonly attribute [MessagePortArray] Array ports;
>> 
>> This looks pretty good, but I wonder if we should just use the type "MessagePortArray" instead of "Array".  Then we wouldn't need to introduce a new IDL attribute.
> 
> Greg: Same comment. Would you update the patch?

I'm definitely cool with that. I was trying to hew close to the existing usage, but it'd definitely be easier to use that type. I'm not stepping on any other toes doing that, right? Is there any sort of "IDLTypes" list I need to update?

[Kentaro Hara]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Is there any sort of "IDLTypes" list I need to update?

No:) The type is not checked anywhere.

[Greg Billock]

Created attachment 137371 [details]
Patch

[Greg Billock]

Diff to patch 1 is changing the check in codegen. There's a bit of skew in the generated files, but there were no changes in the generated handling for MessagePortArray types.

[Kentaro Hara]

Comment on attachment 137371 [details]
Patch

The change looks good. What is the plan for JSC/GObject/CPP/ObjC? (i.e. should we generate some code or skip generating code for those bindings?)

[Greg Billock]

I made a similarly aimed change for transfer parameters code gen (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81127). There we filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82264 for a JSC implementation.

[Kentaro Hara]

Comment on attachment 137371 [details]
Patch

OK. Then please file a bug for JSC, and please work on it sooner or later. We want to make V8 and JSC consistent.

[Greg Billock]

Filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84093

[WebKit Review Bot]

Comment on attachment 137371 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 137371

Committed r114319: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/114319>

[WebKit Review Bot]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.