I thought I'd bring this up again in hopes my life (and I assume others
who are in the same boat as me) a bit easier. My application use
JavaScriptCore and is both in OS X and win32. When I want to upgrade
JSC to get bug fixes, I can download the nightly OS X build and then
just drop in the
Hi Brian,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Brian Barnesgga...@charter.net wrote:
Not so with the win32 build. It has the DLLs, but not the import libraries
(.lib) which are built when the DLLs are built and used to attach the DLL to
my code. Can you folks change the script that creates
Thanks to everybody on this list that helped me get up and running with
JavaScriptCore. I still have not compiled it myself (too busy working
on dim3), so extra thanks to the guy (I forgot your name, sorry) that
did the windows compile of CallJS, which got me the lib/dll combo I need
to do
The last thing I want to do is make you guys job with patches harder, so
I thought I'd seek some advice. I created two convenience functions for
building arrays with consecutive indexes (i.e., new Array(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)).
I haven't gone over all the style guidelines yet (but did a quick
Another quick suggestion, and this is obviously just another convenience
method (I'm sure I could handle this by overriding): It'd be nice to be
able to lock a class (it could be a flag on the definition) to make
adding properties (outside the static variable and function list) illegal.
For
, seal,
preventExtensions) that basically do this -- we just haven't yet
implemented these.
But you can provide custom get and put functions which you could just
make throw on unrecognised property names.
--Oliver
On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Brian Barnes wrote:
Another quick suggestion
My interest in WebKit is integrating my game engine with JSC. I'm far
enough into the switch over that I've begun looking at compiling it on
my own. My goal -- which might be a fools errand -- is to create a
win32 VS compile without dependencies. I don't know if this is
something that I
On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Brent Fulgham wrote:
As a full time Windows developer, I'm afraid I really disagree with
you on this topic. I don't think it's correct that since most win32
development happens (only) in VS, that it follows that we should aim
to only use Visual Studio. I think this
A couple of convenience API suggestions. Again, I'm in the middle of
a big switch over from Mozilla's SpiderMonkey to JSC, so I see a couple
IMHO (and I've been wrong before!) API additions that might make it
easier for new users.
JSValueMakeObject(.)
I know you can cast to the
Oliver Hunt wrote:
Dependency walker tells me that the JavaScriptCore.dll depends on
CFLite.dll, pthreadvc2.dl, and ICUUC40.dll. Perhaps these links are
not all needed; now that JavaScriptCore is its own DLL, we should be
able to get rid of pthreadvc2 (IIRC, the only reason it was kept after
When I define a callback function (JSObjectCallAsFunctionCallback), and
I have it thrown an exception, what should be the return value? The
documentation says:
A JSObject that is the constructor's return value
... but the other side -- JSObjectCallAsFunction -- states:
The JSValue that
Darin Adler wrote:
The design is that the return value is ignored. In theory, you can
safely return anything, even a garbage pointer.
-- Darin
Just so I get the concept (how exceptions are handled is one of the
places that is completely different in Spidermonkey so it's one of the
Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Brian Barnes wrote:
Darin Adler wrote:
The design is that the return value is ignored. In theory, you can
safely return anything, even a garbage pointer.
-- Darin
Just so I get the concept (how exceptions are handled is one
Darin Adler wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Brian Barnes wrote:
Oliver says when I return with an exception, line and sourceURL, etc,
properties will be added to it, and then I can use that later to pick
up the line number.
That’s right.
You now say this doesn't seem happen, which
Darin Adler wrote:
On Aug 10, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Brian Barnes wrote:
I'm attempting to use JSC in my win32 port of my application, and am
running into a number of problems. I suspect they all stem from the
fact that there must be some #defines I need to properly set before
compiling
Darin Adler wrote:
On Aug 10, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Brian Barnes wrote:
JSBase.h includes stdbool.h, which is where this error comes from. I
need JSBase to compile scripts, unless I'm mistaken here.
The the os-win32 directory is not intended for use from clients using
JavaScriptCore
Brent Fulgham wrote:
Hi Brian,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Brian Barnesgga...@charter.net wrote:
Darin Adler wrote:
I believe if you leave it out of the path, then you will get stdbool.h and
stdint.h from Visual Studio itself and everything will be fine.
There is no
, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Sure!
Geoff
On Jul 20, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Brian Barnes wrote:
What should be my next step, here? Submit a bug for this?
[] Brian
On Jul 20, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
How about separate call backs at the class level? That would
solve my problem
I was getting ready to try the first move from SpiderMonkey to Nitro,
and ran into a large problem. Right now, all my getters and setters are
at the property level. In the documentation I have, Nitro only seems to
put them at the object level. This would force a huge refactoring of my
code
.
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between the
property level and the object level. Can you explain what those
mean and give an example of each?
Thanks,
Geoff
On Jul 20, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Brian Barnes wrote:
I was getting ready to try the first move from SpiderMonkey to Nitro
be generally useful
to API clients, it's still a reasonable request, though.
Geoff
On Jul 20, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Brian Barnes wrote:
In SpiderMonkey, you can create an object, and that object has a
callback to a getter or a setter in C. You get the name, look it up,
return or set a value
How about separate call backs at the class level? That would solve my
problem with minimal code movement. Something like:
JSClassSetPropertyGetterSetter(ctx,class,red,myRedGetter,myRedSetter);
Would that be more within the design?
BTW, thanks for listening and leading me through some
What should be my next step, here? Submit a bug for this?
[] Brian
On Jul 20, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
How about separate call backs at the class level? That would solve
my problem with minimal code movement. Something like:
JSClassSetPropertyGetterSetter
I'm working on v3 of my 3D engine dim3, it's a complete rewrite in a
number of areas (for instance going to GLSL, new physics, etc). The
last thing I'm looking at is the javascript engine that runs the
scripting. Right now I'm using SpiderMonkey 1.7, and I'm investigating
moving away from
Thank you David, a couple more quick questions and I should be on my
way. First off, the API is very similar to SpiderMonkey's, so that's a
good thing. Second, following the links I found some example code for
contexts, evaluating, rooting (very important in my case) and calling
functions in
25 matches
Mail list logo
