Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #7003, comment 19


Ignore:
Timestamp:
10/22/2018 08:50:37 PM (6 months ago)
Author:
mjethani
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #7003, comment 19

    v1 v2  
    66> How can it even be a proposal? `whitelist` should be a private internal property and no any client should use it. 
    77 
    8 Two ''facts'' (I did not make this up) about the `whitelist` property: (1) it is accessed directly in `lib/whitelistting.js` and `lib/filterComposer.js` in adblockpluschrome, and (2) it is ''de facto'' public since there is ''no indication'' that it is a private property. That said, my initial hunch was that it should be a private property. We will make it a private property eventually as part of [https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29897555/ patch #29897555]. 
     8Two ''facts'' (I did not make this up) about the `whitelist` property: (1) it is accessed directly in `lib/whitelisting.js` and `lib/filterComposer.js` in adblockpluschrome, and (2) it is ''de facto'' public since there is ''no indication'' that it is a private property. That said, my initial hunch was that it should be a private property. We will make it a private property eventually as part of [https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29897555/ patch #29897555]. 
    99 
    1010> BTW, according to https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/5141 there perhaps should not be internal sub matchers with only whitelisting and only blocking filters.