[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: window.history - solutions (?)
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2001-02-28 20:26:23
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 28 February 2001 19:54, Nikolas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> i've looked where the whole history stuff in konqi
> is "saved". It's in the KonqView class....
> 
> to do nice functions via JS like history.back
> or forward...or even length i would need that list....

Not necessarily the whole list.

> now the question is how to acces that list
> i got 2 ideas.
> 
> 1. "mem eater" (?)
> As we can access the KParts::BrowserExtension
> from the ecma bindings (via part->browserExtension())
> i thought we could add a QList<HistoryEntry> into that Extension
> and everytime we visit a new site the KonqView
> will "send" his new m_lstHistory to the extension...we will have
> the same list in KonqView and the BrowserExtension so that
> we could use it via JS....now Simon told me that it's bad to store
> something in the extension...never mind .....let's see your opinion

"Never mind" Simon's opinion ? Simon is a very wise man, you should
listen to him more :)

> 2. "ugly hack" (!)
> Normally only the application "talks" with the embedded part.
> With that solution we would just place an empty QList<HistoryEntry>
> into the extension and if someone triggers a history.back
> the extension emits a signal getHistoryList()... the khtmlpart
> receives the signal and emit the same signal again
> now konqueror has the signal and gets the historylist from KonqView
> and calls gotHistoryList(QList<HistoryEntry>) in khtmlpart
> ...khtmlpart calls gotHistoryList in the extension.....the extension
> emits a signal so that the ecma binding "knows" that the QList
> in the extension isn't empty anymore and accesses everything it needs.
> 
> 
> I prefer the first solution..
> Ideas?

Why not add a signal for back, one for forward, and a setLength() / length()
in BrowserHostExtension ?
Isn't that what we agreed on previously ?

If JS doesn't need the full list of all the URLs (which AFAIK would be some 
security issue), then why implement a solution around the whole list ?
I'd rather see JS asking konqueror what it exactly needs, no ?

Haven't checked BrowserHostExtension for a while, so I may forget
something important...

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://perso.mandrakesoft.com/~david/, http://www.konqueror.org/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]