feat: add CefAppProtocol bindings and partially port SimpleApplication from original cefsimple #249
Conversation
Adds Rust bindings for the Objective-C protocols required for proper application handling on macOS (CrAppProtocol, CrAppControlProtocol, and CefAppProtocol) using the objc2 crate. These bindings are necessary to correctly implement an NSApplication subclass, which is a foundational step for porting the official cefsimple application logic and fixing related crashes. Refs: tauri-apps#96
Adds SimpleApplication implementing CefAppProtocol. Refs: tauri-apps#96
Updates the cefsimple example on macOS to use the new `cef::application_mac::SimpleApplication`. This properly initializes the application instance, resolving the crash that previously occurred during right-click events. Refs: tauri-apps#96
| @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ | |||
| use std::cell::Cell; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This SimpleApplication should be move to examples?
As for projects integrate cef, they usually have their own NSApplication definition, We should leave it in examples code for reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @csmoe, thanks for taking the time to review my PR.
That is a fair point. My initial decision to place SimpleApplication in the cef crate was based on an earlier discussion with @wravery on the issue.
He suggested the following, which led me to believe it would be a useful utility within the cef crate itself:
I agree, it would be good to include these in the crate itself, although I recommend putting them in the
cefcrate rather than the underlyingcef-dll-syscrate. There are already precedents there for Mac-only modules likecef::library_loaderandcef::sandboxwhich do similar things.I think even having a concrete implementation of
SimpleApplicationwith safe defaults makes sense...
Your point that most users integrating cef will likely have their own NSApplication also makes a lot of sense. It's possible I mistakenly assumed his suggestion to "include these in the cef crate itself" also applied to the concrete SimpleApplication implementation, and not just the protocol bindings.
What are your thoughts on this, @wravery?
I'm happy to move the SimpleApplication code to examples if that's the preferred approach. I just want to make sure I'm following the best direction for the project.
2 participants
It is related #96.
It partially ports SimpleApplication from original cefsimple, and resolves right-click crush on macOS.
By the way, I realized my first commit message,
feat: port SimpleApplication from original cefsimple, might be slightly misleading. This is a partial port to fix the right-click issue, not a full port of SimpleApplication. It contains missing features such as-terminate:method andSimpleAppDelegate.Would you prefer if I rebased to update the commit message to be more precise (e.g., partially port...)? Or are you happy to merge it as is, perhaps squashing and editing the message on your end?
I'm happy to do whatever is easiest for you. Thanks.