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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: KHTMLPart::baseURL vs DocumentImpl::baseURL
From:       Simon Hausmann <hausmann () kde ! org>
Date:       2001-07-25 12:16:58
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 12:17:45PM +0200, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> as far as I can see both are doing the same job, and additionally baseURL's 
> are only useful in context of having a Document (CSS stylesheets baseURLs 
> are a different, independently handled matter), so I vote for killing one of 
> the variants, the open question is which one. 
> 
> a) killing KHTMLPart's one has the advantage that it is the clean solution 
> (IMHO). disadvantage: we have to keep the methods for BC (map them to the 
> documentimpls one ### what to do when there is not yet a document?)

In that case you could map from m_url?
 
> b) killing DocumentImpl's one has the dvantage that it is rarely used at all 
> and not affected to BC problems. Disadvantage is that we have to use the 
> code if(ownerDocument() && ownerDocument()->view() && 
> !owneerDocument()->view()->part().baseURL().isEmpty()) everywhere, which is 
> errorprone and looks ugly. 

IMHO a) is the way to go. 

Bye,
 Simon

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