What's the difference between setWebViewClient vs. setWebChromeClient in Android?
From the source code (http://is.gd/c8VSw):
// Instance of WebViewClient that is the client callback.
private volatile WebViewClient mWebViewClient;
// Instance of WebChromeClient for handling all chrome functions.
private volatile WebChromeClient mWebChromeClient;
// SOME OTHER SUTFFF.......
/**
* Set the WebViewClient.
* @param client An implementation of WebViewClient.
*/
public void setWebViewClient(WebViewClient client) {
mWebViewClient = client;
}
/**
* Set the WebChromeClient.
* @param client An implementation of WebChromeClient.
*/
public void setWebChromeClient(WebChromeClient client) {
mWebChromeClient = client;
}
Using WebChromeClient allows you to handle Javascript dialogs, favicons, titles, and the progress. Take a look of this example: Adding alert() support to a WebView
At first glance, there are too many differences WebViewClient & WebChromeClient. But, basically: if you are developing a WebView that won't require too many features but rendering HTML, you can just use a WebViewClient
. On the other hand, if you want to (for instance) load the favicon of the page you are rendering, you should use a WebChromeClient
object and override the onReceivedIcon(WebView view, Bitmap icon)
.
Most of the times, if you don't want to worry about those things... you can just do this:
webView= (WebView) findViewById(R.id.webview);
webView.setWebChromeClient(new WebChromeClient());
webView.setWebViewClient(new WebViewClient());
webView.getSettings().setJavaScriptEnabled(true);
webView.loadUrl(url);
And your WebView will (in theory) have all features implemented (as the android native browser).