Bug 28004 – [chromium] setting listeners on MessagePorts doesn't work in the worker process

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: FIXED
• Component: Platform

[John Abd-El-Malek]

Bindings need to be updated.

[John Abd-El-Malek]

Created attachment 34098 [details]
Proposed patch

[Dimitri Glazkov (Google)]

Comment on attachment 34098 [details]
Proposed patch

> +    return PassRefPtr<EventListener>();

return 0;

will work just fine, too.

Why are we duplicating these in *Custom files? The logic is the same. Can we possibly use a template or generate these?
If you're not up to mucking with this, can you file a bug about this?

[Dimitri Glazkov (Google)]

Assigned for landing.

[Adam Barth]

Comment on attachment 34098 [details]
Proposed patch

Clearing review flag on attachment: 34098

Committing to http://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/trunk ...
	M	WebCore/ChangeLog
	M	WebCore/bindings/v8/WorkerContextExecutionProxy.cpp
	M	WebCore/bindings/v8/WorkerContextExecutionProxy.h
	M	WebCore/bindings/v8/custom/V8MessagePortCustom.cpp
Committed r46827
	M	WebCore/ChangeLog
	M	WebCore/bindings/v8/WorkerContextExecutionProxy.cpp
	M	WebCore/bindings/v8/WorkerContextExecutionProxy.h
	M	WebCore/bindings/v8/custom/V8MessagePortCustom.cpp
r46827 = 7956a160e452c6f261d5af9dc249b0854e5ed616 (trunk)
No changes between current HEAD and refs/remotes/trunk
Resetting to the latest refs/remotes/trunk
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/46827

[Adam Barth]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.

[John Abd-El-Malek]

Thanks for committing.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (From update of attachment 34098 [details])
> > +    return PassRefPtr<EventListener>();
> 
> return 0;
> 
> will work just fine, too.

ah, didn't know (I had just copied this section from the XHR custom bindings).

> 
> Why are we duplicating these in *Custom files? The logic is the same. Can we
> possibly use a template or generate these?

Yeah a template should work.

> If you're not up to mucking with this, can you file a bug about this?

Sure: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28049