[chromium-dev] Re: [webkit-dev] Changing our IDL syntax to get closer to WebIDL
FYI from the webkit mailing list. We'll probably want to prepare a similar CL for our binding generating code and whoever is doing the merges should look out for this change being landed. J On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: The IDL file format we use to generate our bindings has some things in common with WebIDL and many differences. There are extended attributes we use that exist in WebIDL but with a different name. As a first step in making our IDL syntax be as close to the WebIDL standard as possible, I’d like to move our extended attributes so they go in the appropriate place in the syntax. Ours currently come later in an attribute definition; WebIDL puts them before the attribute definition. I have a patch to do this in this bug https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26398. Currently the patch contains the code changes to make the binding machinery parse the new syntax, and a couple hand-converted files. I plan to write a script to convert all the IDL files to the new syntax. Should be easy. Not sure about what impact this will have for V8. -- Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-...@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: [webkit-dev] Changing our IDL syntax to get closer to WebIDL
If our binding code is already upstream by then, Darin may be able to keep Chromium building throughout the process. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26567 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: FYI from the webkit mailing list. We'll probably want to prepare a similar CL for our binding generating code and whoever is doing the merges should look out for this change being landed. J On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: The IDL file format we use to generate our bindings has some things in common with WebIDL and many differences. There are extended attributes we use that exist in WebIDL but with a different name. As a first step in making our IDL syntax be as close to the WebIDL standard as possible, I’d like to move our extended attributes so they go in the appropriate place in the syntax. Ours currently come later in an attribute definition; WebIDL puts them before the attribute definition. I have a patch to do this in this bug https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26398. Currently the patch contains the code changes to make the binding machinery parse the new syntax, and a couple hand-converted files. I plan to write a script to convert all the IDL files to the new syntax. Should be easy. Not sure about what impact this will have for V8. -- Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-...@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: [webkit-dev] Changing our IDL syntax to get closer to WebIDL
I'm not so sure [1]but we can ask. J [1] http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-May/007960.html http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-May/007960.html1) We weren't super enthusiastic about the master WebKit tree trying to support two different JavaScript engines. But we finally agreed when the Chrome folks said this was a hard requirement to merge, and promised they would take on absolutely 100% of the maintenance burden and impose no cost on the rest of the WebKit project. As a result: On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Eric Seidel esei...@chromium.org wrote: If our binding code is already upstream by then, Darin may be able to keep Chromium building throughout the process. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26567 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: FYI from the webkit mailing list. We'll probably want to prepare a similar CL for our binding generating code and whoever is doing the merges should look out for this change being landed. J On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: The IDL file format we use to generate our bindings has some things in common with WebIDL and many differences. There are extended attributes we use that exist in WebIDL but with a different name. As a first step in making our IDL syntax be as close to the WebIDL standard as possible, I’d like to move our extended attributes so they go in the appropriate place in the syntax. Ours currently come later in an attribute definition; WebIDL puts them before the attribute definition. I have a patch to do this in this bug https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26398. Currently the patch contains the code changes to make the binding machinery parse the new syntax, and a couple hand-converted files. I plan to write a script to convert all the IDL files to the new syntax. Should be easy. Not sure about what impact this will have for V8. -- Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-...@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: [webkit-dev] Changing our IDL syntax to get closer to WebIDL
I'm still not enthused about WebKit having 2 different JavaScript engines. ;) But that's a discussion for another time... -eric On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: I'm not so sure [1]but we can ask. J [1] http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-May/007960.html 1) We weren't super enthusiastic about the master WebKit tree trying to support two different JavaScript engines. But we finally agreed when the Chrome folks said this was a hard requirement to merge, and promised they would take on absolutely 100% of the maintenance burden and impose no cost on the rest of the WebKit project. As a result: On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Eric Seidel esei...@chromium.org wrote: If our binding code is already upstream by then, Darin may be able to keep Chromium building throughout the process. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26567 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: FYI from the webkit mailing list. We'll probably want to prepare a similar CL for our binding generating code and whoever is doing the merges should look out for this change being landed. J On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: The IDL file format we use to generate our bindings has some things in common with WebIDL and many differences. There are extended attributes we use that exist in WebIDL but with a different name. As a first step in making our IDL syntax be as close to the WebIDL standard as possible, I’d like to move our extended attributes so they go in the appropriate place in the syntax. Ours currently come later in an attribute definition; WebIDL puts them before the attribute definition. I have a patch to do this in this bug https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26398. Currently the patch contains the code changes to make the binding machinery parse the new syntax, and a couple hand-converted files. I plan to write a script to convert all the IDL files to the new syntax. Should be easy. Not sure about what impact this will have for V8. -- Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-...@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: [webkit-dev] Changing our IDL syntax to get closer to WebIDL
Amen. I am working on it :) First step -- teach our code generator to understand IDL in the same way JSC does. :DG On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Boodmana...@chromium.org wrote: One thing I'd really like to see is a reduction in the amount of custom bindings code. I am terrified by the number of subtle bugs that must be hiding in there. It seems like teaching the IDL parser and code generator on the WebKit side about more WebIDL-isms would help with this, since a lot of the custom bindings deal with things like function references. - a On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Eric Seidelesei...@chromium.org wrote: I'm still not enthused about WebKit having 2 different JavaScript engines. ;) But that's a discussion for another time... -eric On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: I'm not so sure [1]but we can ask. J [1] http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-May/007960.html 1) We weren't super enthusiastic about the master WebKit tree trying to support two different JavaScript engines. But we finally agreed when the Chrome folks said this was a hard requirement to merge, and promised they would take on absolutely 100% of the maintenance burden and impose no cost on the rest of the WebKit project. As a result: On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Eric Seidel esei...@chromium.org wrote: If our binding code is already upstream by then, Darin may be able to keep Chromium building throughout the process. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26567 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: FYI from the webkit mailing list. We'll probably want to prepare a similar CL for our binding generating code and whoever is doing the merges should look out for this change being landed. J On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: The IDL file format we use to generate our bindings has some things in common with WebIDL and many differences. There are extended attributes we use that exist in WebIDL but with a different name. As a first step in making our IDL syntax be as close to the WebIDL standard as possible, I’d like to move our extended attributes so they go in the appropriate place in the syntax. Ours currently come later in an attribute definition; WebIDL puts them before the attribute definition. I have a patch to do this in this bug https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26398. Currently the patch contains the code changes to make the binding machinery parse the new syntax, and a couple hand-converted files. I plan to write a script to convert all the IDL files to the new syntax. Should be easy. Not sure about what impact this will have for V8. -- Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-...@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: [webkit-dev] Changing our IDL syntax to get closer to WebIDL
I agree. I was thinking about looking into this (once LocalStorage is working). Besides the fact that we have more custom code than we should have, a good portion of the .dll is just generated code. It seems like we should be able to strike a better balance of doing things dynamically vs statically in the binding code. J On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote: One thing I'd really like to see is a reduction in the amount of custom bindings code. I am terrified by the number of subtle bugs that must be hiding in there. It seems like teaching the IDL parser and code generator on the WebKit side about more WebIDL-isms would help with this, since a lot of the custom bindings deal with things like function references. - a On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Eric Seidelesei...@chromium.org wrote: I'm still not enthused about WebKit having 2 different JavaScript engines. ;) But that's a discussion for another time... -eric On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: I'm not so sure [1]but we can ask. J [1] http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-May/007960.html 1) We weren't super enthusiastic about the master WebKit tree trying to support two different JavaScript engines. But we finally agreed when the Chrome folks said this was a hard requirement to merge, and promised they would take on absolutely 100% of the maintenance burden and impose no cost on the rest of the WebKit project. As a result: On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Eric Seidel esei...@chromium.org wrote: If our binding code is already upstream by then, Darin may be able to keep Chromium building throughout the process. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26567 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote: FYI from the webkit mailing list. We'll probably want to prepare a similar CL for our binding generating code and whoever is doing the merges should look out for this change being landed. J On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote: The IDL file format we use to generate our bindings has some things in common with WebIDL and many differences. There are extended attributes we use that exist in WebIDL but with a different name. As a first step in making our IDL syntax be as close to the WebIDL standard as possible, I’d like to move our extended attributes so they go in the appropriate place in the syntax. Ours currently come later in an attribute definition; WebIDL puts them before the attribute definition. I have a patch to do this in this bug https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26398. Currently the patch contains the code changes to make the binding machinery parse the new syntax, and a couple hand-converted files. I plan to write a script to convert all the IDL files to the new syntax. Should be easy. Not sure about what impact this will have for V8. -- Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-...@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
