Off the top of my head, some suggestions for more files that could usefully be split out from html.cc: - table.cc , handles <table> , <tr> , <td> , <th> - list.cc , handles <ul> , <ol> , <li> , <dl> , <dt> , <dd> - text.cc , handles <i> , <u> , <b> , <em> , <strike> - paragraph.cc , handles <p> , <blockquote> , <center> , <address> - page.cc , handles <html> , <head> , <title> , <meta> , <body> Thoughts? Regards, Jeremy Henty
Sebastian was once thinking of splitting "general parsing and tokenizing" from "handling HTML specific stuff" in html.c (http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-June/000758.html) Whether that didn't turn out well or he got distracted by other things, I don't know... Are you planning to do more with form.cc, or are you done with it for now?
On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 08:26:37PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Sebastian was once thinking of splitting "general parsing and tokenizing" from "handling HTML specific stuff" in html.c
I see splitting out form.cc , table.cc etc. as a step-by-step way of achieving that. The general parsing and tokenizing code would stay in html.cc , and html_common.h would become the generic parser interface.
Are you planning to do more with form.cc, or are you done with it for now?
There's quite a lot of cleaning up and refactoring of to form.cc still to do. I put it on hold and began splitting html.cc because I was getting bored and felt like a change. None of the form.cc work is urgent so I'd be happy to keep it on hold if others want to work on it without being disrupted. There's plenty other things to work on. Regards, Jeremy Henty
On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 09:06:07PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
Off the top of my head, some suggestions for more files that could usefully be split out from html.cc:
- table.cc , handles <table> , <tr> , <td> , <th> - list.cc , handles <ul> , <ol> , <li> , <dl> , <dt> , <dd> - text.cc , handles <i> , <u> , <b> , <em> , <strike> - paragraph.cc , handles <p> , <blockquote> , <center> , <address> - page.cc , handles <html> , <head> , <title> , <meta> , <body>
Thoughts?
Considering: [...] 16 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 14378 2008-06-01 21:59 nav.c 16 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 15023 2008-02-29 14:40 png.c 16 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 15318 2008-05-25 18:24 prefs.c 20 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 16619 2008-06-01 21:59 uicmd.cc 20 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 17543 2008-03-29 12:04 url.c 20 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 17962 2008-06-01 21:59 capi.c 28 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 26697 2008-05-21 18:56 ui.cc 32 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 29415 2008-03-15 14:24 gif.c 36 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 35558 2008-06-01 22:00 cache.c 64 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 59540 2008-06-11 12:01 form.cc 132 -rw-r--r-- 1 jcid jcid 130045 2008-06-10 10:47 html.cc I'd say go with table and that's it. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:13:13PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
I'd say go with table...
OK, here's the patch. It's a much smaller change than the form.cc patch (table.cc is only 10k) because table parsing is much simpler and form.cc includes form submission code as well as parsing. It doesn't make nearly as much of an impact on the size of html.cc . It also moves more declarations into html_common.hh (stuff to parse colours and lengths and set styles). As before developers will have to " make maintainer-clean ; ./autogen.sh " so that table.cc gets built.
...and that's it.
:-( I was looking forward to more slicing and dicing! ;-) What do others think? Regards, Jeremy Henty
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:49:39PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:13:13PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
I'd say go with table... ...and that's it.
:-( I was looking forward to more slicing and dicing! ;-)
You can keep on polishing! It's just we _may_ need to change some of the parser structure in the future and I didn't want you to polish it throughly and then see it re-structured into something different. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:26:10PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:49:39PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:13:13PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
I'd say go with table... ...and that's it.
:-( I was looking forward to more slicing and dicing! ;-)
You can keep on polishing!
Actually, I think I've done most of the easy polishing for the moment. I might actually have to fix something! :-)
It's just we _may_ need to change some of the parser structure in the future and I didn't want you to polish it throughly and then see it re-structured into something different.
Fair enough. What was the decision about splitting off table.cc ? I sent in the patch but it hasn't appeared in CVS and I've not seen a response. I don't particularly mind either way, but it would be useful to know whether it's going to happen. Regards, Jeremy Henty
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 09:26:32PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
[...] Fair enough. What was the decision about splitting off table.cc ? I sent in the patch but it hasn't appeared in CVS and I've not seen a response. I don't particularly mind either way, but it would be useful to know whether it's going to happen.
Ooops, I skipped over it unintentionally. Thanks for the reminder. Committed. -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (3)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
onepoint＠starurchin.org