[rekonq] Re: Review Request: AdBlock cleanup

[Benjamin Poulain]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/#review1504
-----------------------------------------------------------


I am not a fan of listing every option. When the author of adblock add an option, we will need to update the code.
What about just one field: hasUnsupportedOption set to true if any option is not used by the filter?

Not to mention adblock already takes its share of memory. Don't forget those field will be allocated for each rule.

- Benjamin


On Feb. 19, 2011, 9:57 a.m., Andrea Diamantini wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 19, 2011, 9:57 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for rekonq and Benjamin Poulain.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> AdBlock clean up.
> With this patch we explicitely allow any option that has not been (yet) fully implemented.
> 
> 
> This addresses bugs 248045, 253329 and 265909.
>     /show_bug.cgi?id=248045
>     /show_bug.cgi?id=253329
>     /show_bug.cgi?id=265909
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/adblock/adblockrulefallbackimpl.h ec10ee5 
>   src/adblock/adblockrulefallbackimpl.cpp ae0e14d 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100683/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrea
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/rekonq/attachments/20110219/1d71b3d6/attachment.htm