GSoC frames idea

John-Mark Bell jmb at netsurf-browser.org
Thu Mar 26 20:26:10 GMT 2009


On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 21:17 +0100, Paweł Blokus wrote:
> 2009/3/26 John-Mark Bell <jmb at ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
> > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 23:09 +0100, Paweł Blokus wrote:
> >>
> >> A frame redraw would be handled like a regular one with the difference
> >> that the frame offsets in the BW would have to be taken into account.
> >> Also, as a BW would be bound up with several contents a way of passing
> >> the one to be redrawn would have to be added.
> >
> > I think it would make more sense to have a 1:1 mapping between contents
> > and frame objects. Then, perhaps, have the content handler in the frame
> > object bubble the redraw request up the frames tree where it finally
> > arrives in the browser_window, which then propagates the request up to
> > the frontend.
> >
> That was actually my intention, hence the content pointer inside the
> frame struct. (I guess it didn't help me writing "The remaining
> variables would be shifted to the frame struct" in the matter of
> clearance :) ). 

Ah, ok :) My incomprehension.

> By bounding I meant the browser window holding the
> root of the frames tree and that the content couldn't be simply
> accessed for redraw from bw->current_content any more. This way the
> concerned content would be one parameter to be passed for redrawing
> and it's offsets on the main canvas another one.

Does the frontend need to care about the content?


J.




More information about the netsurf-dev mailing list