- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Re: [Dillo-dev] Yes or No: optional compilation of 'extra' features

by Andreas Schweitzer

> I'm guessing almost everybody wants to have frames, so maybe removing > the conditional compilation of frames is worthwhile for the sake of > simplifying code. Not only everybody *wants* it. Afterall, frames are part of the HTML standard. So it makes sense to have them. But then again, as far as I understood some of the last e-mails from Jorge : isn't he reviewing this patch now or pretty soon ? > Thanks for all your work, Frank. I second that ! Great work ! Cheers Andreas -- **************************** NEW ADDRESS ****************************** Hamburger Sternwarte Universitaet Hamburg Gojenbergsweg 112 Tel. ++49 40 42891 4016 D-21029 Hamburg, Germany Fax. ++49 40 42891 4198

Sept. 25, 2003

Dillo authorization question...

by Ronald W. Henderson

Group: Does dillo authorization via a popup login authorization dialog? I want to use dillo to manage my linksys router. When I use html management with this router I get the following output from dillo: 401 Unauthorized Authorization Required. I have dillo version 0.7.3 Is there a patch for this? Thanks.... Ronald W. Henderson

Sept. 25, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Yes or No: optional compilation of 'extra' features

by Paul Pelzl

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:51:45PM +0200, Frank de Lange wrote: > Those of you who have tried my tab/frames patch will know that I usually make > all 'extra' features optional. This allows those who {do not {need|like}|can > not afford} those features to leave them out of the resulting binary. However, > it also makes the code somewhat more complex, as the optional features are > enabled/disabled through conditional compilation (#ifdef/#ifndef....#endif). > The space saved by leaving out tabs and frames is currently about 25 kilobytes > (Kib, kB, KB, choose your acronym...). > > I have gotten some comments on this, suggesting the removal of these > conditional statements. This way, Dillo would ALWAYS have the extra features > (tabs and frames). > > Before I say 'yes' or 'no' to these suggestions, I'd like to know what your > thoughts are on this. > > So, speak up. Have a look at the code (look for #ifdef XHTML_DTD_... and > #ifndef DISABLE_FRAMES) and tell me whether the savings in space are worth the > added complexity... Judging by previous threads in this list, a number of people seem to strongly dislike tabs, so it would seem that DISABLE_TABS is a good thing. (I personally disable tabs, but only because I use a tabbing window manager. I think having tab support in Dillo is a great thing.) I'm guessing almost everybody wants to have frames, so maybe removing the conditional compilation of frames is worthwhile for the sake of simplifying code. Thanks for all your work, Frank. Frames support is really nice for browsing groups.google.com. Paul

Sept. 25, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Yes or No: optional compilation of 'extra' features

by Frank de Lange

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Paul Pelzl wrote: > Thanks for all your work, Frank. Frames support is really nice for > browsing groups.google.com. :-) That was one of my main reasons to implement frames... Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Sept. 25, 2003

recent changes to nav.c

by Frank de Lange

Jorge, Recently you added a new function (a_Nav_push_nw()) to nav.c. Though that function works fine, it should not be there... Why not? IMO, nav.c should NOT be concerned with windows, tabs, frames or whatever 'visual/physical' location a document is displayed in. It should just concern itself with the state of the document itself. This way, interface and document code are better separated, making it much easier and cleaner to add interface functionality (like tabs, frames, whatever) to Dillo. I have removed this function from my tab/frame patch, as the functionality it provides is - and has for a long time - already present in commands.c. That seems to be a better location for this type of functionality (even though commands.c does end up being a sort of grab-bag for miscellaneous stuff, maybe it should be reorganized a bit...) Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Sept. 25, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Yes or No: optional compilation of 'extra' features

by Frank de Lange

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:52:20AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > So, speak up. Have a look at the code (look for #ifdef XHTML_DTD_... > > #and ifndef DISABLE_FRAMES) and tell me whether the savings in space > > #are worth the > > added complexity... > > IANAP, but why not control the _optional_ FEATURES thru the rc file, > (on/off, yes/no, 1/0)? That is possible, but it does not save any space in the resulting binary. Conditional compilation does. This can be an issue, even though the total size of tabs+frames tops at about 25 K. If I remove the conditional compilation, I will probably add a pref to disable tabs though, as these seem to be 'controversial'... (as similar functionality can be provided by some WM's) Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Sept. 25, 2003

errno and glibc

by Frank de Lange

Hi'all, Some of you might have run into the same problem as I did when I tried to compile the latest CVS with -Werror: dpi_service.o(.text+0x1d4): In function `dpi_dir': ../../../dillo_tabs/dpid/dpi_service.c:127: undefined reference to `errno' dpi_service.o(.text+0x3fc): In function `rd_dpi_dir': ../../../dillo_tabs/dpid/dpi_service.c:187: undefined reference to `errno' dpi_service.o(.text+0x57b):../../../dillo_tabs/dpid/dpi_service.c:211: undefined reference to `errno' dpi_service.o(.text+0x8df): In function `send_servers_list': ../../../dillo_tabs/dpid/dpi_service.c:290: undefined reference to `errno' This is caused by the failure to include <errno.h>, which is where errno is declared. Just add #include <errno.h> to dpid/dpi_service.c and it compiles cleanly (at least here...) <PATCH> --- dillo/dpid/dpi_service.c 2003-09-15 02:56:41.000000000 +0200 +++ dillo_tabs/dpid/dpi_service.c 2003-09-25 17:13:31.263098504 +0200 @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ #include <string.h> #include <dirent.h> #include <error.h> +#include <errno.h> #include <glib.h> #ifdef TEST #include "testdat.h" </PATCH> Jorge, can you apply this patch? Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Sept. 25, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Yes or No: optional compilation of 'extra' features

by Patrick Shanahan

* Frank de Lange <frank(a)unternet.org> [09-25-03 08:39]: > > Those of you who have tried my tab/frames patch will know that I > usually make all 'extra' features optional. This allows those who {do > not {need|like}|can not afford} those features to leave them out of > the resulting binary. However, it also makes the code somewhat more > complex, as the optional features are enabled/disabled through > conditional compilation (#ifdef/#ifndef....#endif). The space saved > by leaving out tabs and frames is currently about 25 kilobytes (Kib, > kB, KB, choose your acronym...). > > I have gotten some comments on this, suggesting the removal of these > conditional statements. This way, Dillo would ALWAYS have the extra > features (tabs and frames). > > Before I say 'yes' or 'no' to these suggestions, I'd like to know > what your thoughts are on this. > > So, speak up. Have a look at the code (look for #ifdef XHTML_DTD_... > #and ifndef DISABLE_FRAMES) and tell me whether the savings in space > #are worth the > added complexity... IANAP, but why not control the _optional_ FEATURES thru the rc file, (on/off, yes/no, 1/0)? -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org

Sept. 25, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Yes or No: optional compilation of 'extra' features

by Victor Sahlstedt

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:51:45 +0200 Frank de Lange <frank(a)unternet.org> wrote: > I have gotten some comments on this, suggesting the removal of these > conditional statements. This way, Dillo would ALWAYS have the extra features > (tabs and frames). Well, I doubt 25kB is an issue for anyone and if people are uncomfortable with tabs they still have the ability to open a new window. I can't speak for the majority but personally I don't see a reason why anyone wouldn't want the frames. > Before I say 'yes' or 'no' to these suggestions, I'd like to know what your > thoughts are on this. > > So, speak up. Have a look at the code (look for #ifdef XHTML_DTD_... and > #ifndef DISABLE_FRAMES) and tell me whether the savings in space are worth the > added complexity... Personally, I don't think it's worth it. As I use the features myself though I might be a bit biased. - Victor

Sept. 25, 2003

Yes or No: optional compilation of 'extra' features

by Frank de Lange

Hi'all, Those of you who have tried my tab/frames patch will know that I usually make all 'extra' features optional. This allows those who {do not {need|like}|can not afford} those features to leave them out of the resulting binary. However, it also makes the code somewhat more complex, as the optional features are enabled/disabled through conditional compilation (#ifdef/#ifndef....#endif). The space saved by leaving out tabs and frames is currently about 25 kilobytes (Kib, kB, KB, choose your acronym...). I have gotten some comments on this, suggesting the removal of these conditional statements. This way, Dillo would ALWAYS have the extra features (tabs and frames). Before I say 'yes' or 'no' to these suggestions, I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this. So, speak up. Have a look at the code (look for #ifdef XHTML_DTD_... and #ifndef DISABLE_FRAMES) and tell me whether the savings in space are worth the added complexity... BTW, I do not mind either way... As always, look for the patch at http://www.geocities.com/ikbenfrank A new patch, with some new functionality (sorry Sebastian, functionality was added before you asked me not to add anything new...) will be ready soon. It improves upon the way frame margins are handled, adds an alternative for the find and load popup menu, and includes 'find as you type' (or 'incremental search'). Small parts of the patch (image menu, hand cursor, fixes to widgets) are slowly been added to CVS now. If you want to see the rest added as well, help me out and provide some feedback... Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Sept. 25, 2003