We need to have this discussion sooner or later, seems like sooner
is now required as Robert proposed to have Seed included in Gnome.
First of all, I think most of us agrees that it would be a mistake to depend
on two different JavaScript bindings in GNOME, we need to chose one and
stick to
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Jason D. Clinton m...@jasonclinton.com wrote:
. After all,
both implementations run the same language with the same syntax and
they are *both* using the same underlying GObject bindings so the
API's will be the same.
This is the key question, isn't it. _Are_
Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Johan Dahlin jo...@gnome.org wrote:
We need to have this discussion sooner or later, seems like sooner
is now required as Robert proposed to have Seed included in Gnome.
First of all, I think most of us agrees that it would be a mistake
Jason D. Clinton wrote:
think we need to support bindings for both front-runners. After all,
both implementations run the same language with the same syntax and
they are *both* using the same underlying GObject bindings so the
API's will be the same.
Not quite the same as Spidermonkey
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Johan Dahlin jo...@gnome.org wrote:
The language is pretty different, SpiderMonkey supports quite a few
/language/ extensions which JSCore doesn't.[1][2][3]
s/doesn't./doesn't yet./g
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Johan Dahlin jo...@gnome.org wrote:
The language is pretty different, SpiderMonkey supports quite a few
/language/ extensions which JSCore doesn't.[1][2][3]
s/doesn't./doesn't yet./g
I don't think JSCore is going to implement all
2009/1/6 Johan Dahlin jo...@gnome.org:
Anyway, what subset of JS that's going to be used in the newest and fanciest
web pages seems like a less than ideal criteria to use to select a
javascript engine for GNOME. Instead we should compare what's available,
which will help developers to write
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
The APIs will certainly not automatically be the same. There are lots
and lots of little decisions you have to make when you bind gtk. If just
one of these differ then they won't be compatible.
It's not clear to me why
On Jan 6, 2009, at 14:07, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Alexander Larsson
al...@redhat.com wrote:
The APIs will certainly not automatically be the same. There are lots
and lots of little decisions you have to make when you bind gtk. If
just
one of these differ
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Jason D. Clinton m...@jasonclinton.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
The APIs will certainly not automatically be the same. There are lots
and lots of little decisions you have to make when you bind gtk. If
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Johan Dahlin jo...@gnome.org wrote:
We need to have this discussion sooner or later, seems like sooner
is now required as Robert proposed to have Seed included in Gnome.
First of all, I think most of us agrees that it would be a mistake to depend
on two
I just woke up to about 50 emails to reply to, so this might all come out
rather disorganised, but this seemed like a good one to start with.
I appreciate Havoc's first point, in that I agree it's not fair to drop
the entire responsibility for re basing on the other binding on one
group. As both
As I mentioned in the other email, dropping Seed to using GJS as the
reference implementation, would essentially consist of changing small
binding semantics, and then dropping around a third of the Seed code base
which is oriented towards the more complex features. This isn't really
something I'm
While this argument is somewhat counter to my side most of the
JavaScript extensions are actually quite nice, and will be implemented in
WebKit.
==Original message text===
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:52:46 EST Kalle Vahlman wrote:
2009/1/6 Johan Dahlin jo...@gnome.org:
JSCore is open to all these extensions, and they are on the slate to be
implemented, just not a priority. It's somewhat likely I could end up
implementing some of them, as a few would be nice to have in Seed.
Long term though I think there are considerations that have to be
considered beyond
Another update, I've talked to Havoc in IRC. Seed is going to switch to
the gjs/Vala format for enums (later today), and to the gjs import style.
The remaining difference in the core bindings, is how signals are
handled, and we've been discussing this with no conclusion yet, but in
the not so far
2009/1/6 Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu:
Another update, I've talked to Havoc in IRC. Seed is going to switch to
the gjs/Vala format for enums (later today), and to the gjs import style.
The remaining difference in the core bindings, is how signals are
handled, and we've been discussing this with
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote:
2009/1/6 Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu:
Hats off for you both guys on working together to achieve compatibility.
Another issue that might be worth taking into account is that you
should be consistent on how you document the
18 matches
Mail list logo
