KIO / KWebView and PrivateBrowsing (Cookies)

[Dawit A]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Alex Fiestas <afiestas at kde.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:23:27 AM Dawit A wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Alex Fiestas <afiestas at kde.org> wrote:
> > > After reading the patch and understanding a little bit more how this
> work
> > > I
> > > reached the following conclusion (potentially wrong as before :p).
> > >
> > > storageDisabled should work as it does right now (without the patch),
> it
> > > does
> > > disable any storage and allow reading, which imho it is exactly what
> you
> > > expect from "disable storage".
> > >
> > > So, how do we enable Private Browsing in AcessManager?
> > > By setting a different CookieJar, the default Qt implementation will do
> > > the
> > > job perfectly storing all the cookies in memory until the jar is
> destroyed
> > > (Private Browsing disabled).
> > >
> > > Right now any new CookieJar set via QNetworkAccessManager::setCookieJar
> > > will
> > > be ignored by Integration::AccessManager since at the end kio_http will
> > > use
> > > the "auto" cookie mode.
> > >
> > > So, the solution should be:
> > >
> > > -Fix the support for external QNetworkCookieJar's, this will have to be
> > > done
> > > anyway since Integration should have support for it.
> > >
> > > -Fix KWebPage to set a custom CookieJar when private browsing is
> > > activated.
> > >
> > > What do you think? does it make any sense at all this time?
>

> > Well actually it is a little bit simpler than that to get to what you
> want.
> > Keeping only the portion of my patch that deals with disabling cookie
> > handling in kio_http along with you setting your own custom cookiejar
> > through QWebPage::networkAccessManager()->setCookieJar should be
> sufficient
> > for what you are trying to do.
> I will try to provide a patch, thanks for the support !


If you wait a litte while I am going to fix this issue once and for all
since I want to add proper support for "Private browsing mode" in
kwebkitpart. I am sure the reKonq guys/gals will appreciate that as well.

> However, to properly fix the issue of "private browsing mode" for more
> > complex scenarios like allowing two separate instances of web browsers to
> > share cookies as it is done in other browser implementations (I checked
> > Chromium) requires a little bit more involved fix. We would need to use
> the
> > cookiejar and that means we need a way to mark such cookies as private to
> > the cookiejar. The trick is to do that without having to modify any of
> the
> > KDE cookiejar code. I will see what I can do about that...
> I have been willing to do a small app to load a single KDED for months
> now,though I wanted to do it for ease the development of a KDED that very
> same
> app could be used to execute another instance of KCookieJar.
>
> Flow should be something like:
> 1-User actiavte's private browsing
> 2-rekonq executes a custom KCookieJar
>   -This could be done automatically within kdewebkit but we are in freeze
>   -Once we fix the "Be able to use custom CookieJars with KWebkit" rekonq
> could write one to use this custom KCookieJar instance
> 3-Once private browsing is deactiavted, the small app is closed deleting
> all
> its content.
>

> Something I really like from that approach is that we keep things
> "phisically"
> separated, kded4 will handle real cookies while the new instance will
> handle
> private-browsing cookies.
>

Why unnecessarily waste memory ? I personally do not like this idea. For
every application that starts its own "private browsing mode" there will be
a separate instance of kcookiejar ? That is completely unwarranted. Plus
there will most definitely be unforeseen consequences for having multiple
instances of kcookiejar running. For example, you cannot predict how the
cookie management dialog would behave under such circumstances.

I personally believe there are easier ways to deal with this without having
to change any code in kcookiejar. However, I won't be able to know that for
sure until I try it and see if it passes all test cases. I will do that
soon as I want to have this functionality in for KDE 4.9 at least.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20120425/6e8fba42/attachment.htm>