RESOLVED FIXED112261
[WK2][EFL] Mark not implemented methods in TextCheckerEfl
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112261
Summary [WK2][EFL] Mark not implemented methods in TextCheckerEfl
Grzegorz Czajkowski
Reported 2013-03-13 08:04:04 PDT
As a continuation of bug 111713 I'd like to prose further improvements of EFL's TextChecker. It's no need to call client's methods in TextCheckerEfl if they are not implemented. At the moment, they are using internal WK2 WebTextChecker class wich is not recommended. It's better to mark them as not implemented unless we provide proper implementation.
Attachments
proposed patch (3.87 KB, patch)
2013-03-13 08:07 PDT, Grzegorz Czajkowski
andersca: review+
Grzegorz Czajkowski
Comment 1 2013-03-13 08:07:22 PDT
Created attachment 192924 [details] proposed patch
Mikhail Pozdnyakov
Comment 2 2013-03-13 08:13:46 PDT
Comment on attachment 192924 [details] proposed patch Makes sense.
Mikhail Pozdnyakov
Comment 3 2013-03-13 08:15:48 PDT
(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 192924 [details]) > Makes sense. The class TextChecker is WK2 generic so we cannot just remove those methods, right?
Grzegorz Czajkowski
Comment 4 2013-03-13 08:20:36 PDT
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (From update of attachment 192924 [details] [details]) > > Makes sense. > The class TextChecker is WK2 generic so we cannot just remove those methods, right? Exactly, thanks for the review!
Gyuyoung Kim
Comment 5 2013-03-13 20:55:55 PDT
Comment on attachment 192924 [details] proposed patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=192924&action=review Should we remove this at the moment ? Is it better to remove when we prepare a patch for new implementation ? > Source/WebKit2/ChangeLog:10 > + class wich is not recommended. Typo: wich ?
Grzegorz Czajkowski
Comment 6 2013-03-14 00:53:05 PDT
(In reply to comment #5) > (From update of attachment 192924 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=192924&action=review > > Should we remove this at the moment ? Is it better to remove when we prepare a patch for new implementation ? IMO, it's better to remove it. Grammar checking implementation is more complicated than the spell checking due to libraries/services unavailability. We are not sure whether the implementation will be provided. Secondly our text checker doesn't implement them (the client's callbacks are not initialized) so it doesn't make sense to invoke them. Finally, Kenneth mentioned that we shouldn't call the client's methods in TextCheckerEfl as the matter of fact we use an internal WebKit implementation (with Enchant support). It'd be better to call them directly as Mac is doing in their TextCheckerMac.mm > > > Source/WebKit2/ChangeLog:10 > > + class wich is not recommended. > > Typo: wich ? Thanks. If you don't mind I fix it before landing.
Gyuyoung Kim
Comment 7 2013-03-14 01:06:35 PDT
Ok, looks make sense.
Grzegorz Czajkowski
Comment 8 2013-04-09 00:29:16 PDT
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.