Closed
Bug 580448
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
Document PCookieService.ipdl
Categories
(Core :: Networking: Cookies, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: jdm, Assigned: dwitte)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
|
10.38 KB,
patch
|
jdm
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
>+++ b/netwerk/cookie/PCookieService.ipdl
>+ sync GetCookieString(URI host,
>+ URI originating,
>+ bool fromHttp)
>+ returns (nsCString result);
What does "URI host" mean? Is the caller expected to just send over some URI
with the right hostname, or do they need to trim everything except
scheme+host(+port?). Or something else?
What's |originating|?
| Reporter | ||
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
>+ SetCookieString(URI host,
>+ URI originating,
>+ nsCString cookieString,
>+ nsCString serverTime,
>+ bool fromHttp);
Similar here. Also, document what serverTime's format is (or at least where it
should come from)?
Summary: Document GetCookieString → Document PCookieString.ipdl
| Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Summary: Document PCookieString.ipdl → Document PCookieService.ipdl
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
Attachment #475909 -
Flags: review?(josh)
| Reporter | ||
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 475909 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
>+ * file:// URI's (i.e. with an empty host) are allowed, but any other
s/URI's/URIs
>+ * file:// URI's (i.e. with an empty host) are allowed, but any other
same as above
I'm not sure how I feel about the completely duplicated documentation for the common parameters. I'll defer to you, but I feel like it might be better to simply refer the viewer to the earlier docs if they're identical.
In fact, I'm not overjoyed about duplicating the docs from nsICookieService in the IPDL files. If the parameters are the same, would it be enough to simply refer the reader to the originals, with a note about the identical nature?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → dwitte
Attachment #475909 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #475932 -
Flags: review?(josh)
Attachment #475909 -
Flags: review?(josh)
| Reporter | ||
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 475932 [details] [diff] [review]
v2
r=me
Attachment #475932 -
Flags: review?(josh) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•