The GNOME release-team will decide about module inclusions for GNOME
2.28 soon.
To the GNOME developers:
If you have not commented yet, if there is anything to add, if you have
questions to the maintainer: Please comment now.
To the maintainers who have proposed a module or a new dependency:
If
Le jeudi 14 mai 2009, à 01:11 -0400, Robert Carr a écrit :
I've started the gnome-js-common module tonight and pushed it to GIT
(just lang.js signals.js and tweener), and by the next Seed release (2
weeks again...) intend to move a lot of the Seed modules and tests
there.
Just want to say:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:20 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org wrote:
We don't maintain the runtimes, we maintain the integration between
those runtimes and the platform. AFAIK we do this for a lot of other
languages, like
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
Spidermonkey: Mature, good API for extensibility. Nice language
extensions. (JS 1.7.) Mostly packaged as part of xulrunner, which is
a problem. Maintained by an organization that has a thorough
commitment to open
Hi,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org wrote:
- They claim not all the extensions are well thought out, and that
some of them make the language more complex and harder to implement in
an efficient and high-performing way (the specific example for this
was 'let'). I have
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Havoc Pennington
havoc.penning...@gmail.com wrote:
So perhaps it would be a good idea to just stick to a JS defined in
some standard widely used for all GNOME code, in order to avoid future
headaches, and consider other languages with real self-extension
Hi,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org wrote:
Owen has said that he'd only really miss destructuring assignment I
think, your opinion is that 'let' is a deal breaker?
I'm not saying anything is a dealbreaker, just that I don't agree with
the arguments against language
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Havoc Pennington h...@pobox.com wrote:
If we say we have to not only support spidermonkey and JSC, but any
future hypothetical JS implementation, then we're really committing to
not only not using language extensions, but _never_ using or creating
extensions.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:18, Sandy Armstrong
sanfordarmstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Hubert Figuiere h...@figuiere.net wrote:
On 05/12/2009 08:01 PM, Robert Carr wrote:
For 2.28, it may make sense to have both gjs and Seed as modules, and
try and keep code
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Jaap A. Haitsma j...@haitsma.org wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:18, Sandy Armstrong
sanfordarmstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Hubert Figuiere h...@figuiere.net wrote:
On 05/12/2009 08:01 PM, Robert Carr wrote:
For 2.28, it may make
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu wrote:
Can you commit to put in the few days work to make a patch for
gnome-shell to use libseed? I think that makes it easy for the
gnome-shell developers to go to libseed
Yes I can do this (and have been planning to) and put it in
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu wrote:
Can you commit to put in the few days work to make a patch for
gnome-shell to use libseed? I think that makes it easy for the
gnome-shell developers to go to
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Luca Ferretti elle@libero.it wrote:
2009/5/13 Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org:
snip
Do you have any idea of how big a task adding 'let' support to JSC
would be? Seems like that would be the real end of another contention
point between gjs/seed.
Just a
Le mardi 12 mai 2009, à 18:18 -0700, Sandy Armstrong a écrit :
I agree with Hubert that sending mixed messages about browser/js
engines is not a good idea.
FWIW, this is more or less the feeling that the release team had when it
was proposed for 2.26.
I think it's pretty clear by now that
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu wrote:
So far, Seed adoption is still somewhat light. Epiphany-webkit in GIT
contains a system for writing
extensions in Seed, which seems to be working fairly well. In addition
GNOME-games contains
lightsoff, a Clutter game written
Hi!
In summary: we need both engines and we need them in our platform
sooner rather than later.
I would be way better if it will simply not matter which engine an
application uses and we could switch to whatever is better at any time
and for any usecase.
But it seems that Javascript engines
2009/5/13 Jason D. Clinton m...@jasonclinton.com:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu wrote:
So far, Seed adoption is still somewhat light. Epiphany-webkit in GIT
contains a system for writing
extensions in Seed, which seems to be working fairly well. In addition
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote:
2009/5/13 Jason D. Clinton m...@jasonclinton.com:
I think we must have both engines. The JS optimization battle between
Mozilla and Apple is just now heating up; we cannot wait until the
battle is over to pick a winner and
Quite apart from choosing which 1 of 2 candidate engines we should
choose, something seems very wrong if we have to maintain a runtime
engine for a programming language that we want to use. It's not
something we do for any other programming languages.
This strongly suggests that this is not a
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jason D. Clinton m...@jasonclinton.com wrote:
+1 from me. Robert has been very responsive and his team of minions
have made changes whenever I've asked.
I think we must have both engines. The JS optimization battle between
Mozilla and Apple is just now heating
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
Quite apart from choosing which 1 of 2 candidate engines we should
choose, something seems very wrong if we have to maintain a runtime
engine for a programming language that we want to use. It's not
something we do for
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
Quite apart from choosing which 1 of 2 candidate engines we should
choose, something seems very wrong if we have to maintain a runtime
engine for a programming language that we want to use. It's not
something we do for
On 2009.05.13, at 11:38, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org
wrote:
That sounds to me more of a counter argument, is the GNOME official
desktop release the right place for a JavaScript engine battle? Isn't
the performance of both already
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org wrote:
I just want to point out that if the gnome-shell developers have any
intention or desire of using Seed in the future this whole we need
both engines debate is a bit pointless, since in theory there
wouldn't be any module using
I wanted to provide some gnome-shell perspective here.
In quick summary, we'd see including libseed in the GNOME-2.28 desktop
set as a positive step toward heavier use of Javascript in GNOME in the
future.
Porting gnome-shell to Seed would certainly not be a big deal; I would
sigh in regret over
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 20:38, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
I wanted to provide some gnome-shell perspective here.
In quick summary, we'd see including libseed in the GNOME-2.28 desktop
set as a positive step toward heavier use of Javascript in GNOME in the
future.
Porting
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Jason D. Clinton m...@jasonclinton.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org wrote:
I just want to point out that if the gnome-shell developers have any
intention or desire of using Seed in the future this whole we need
both
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
- Alignment with HTML components in GNOME. The apparent trend towards
WebKit in Epiphany, Yelp, etc certainly gives a strong impetus to
going towards JavascriptCore and avoiding a Gecko dependency.
It's worth
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Xan Lopez x...@gnome.org wrote:
We don't maintain the runtimes, we maintain the integration between
those runtimes and the platform. AFAIK we do this for a lot of other
languages, like Python, Perl, Scheme, Java...
While I agree with the main spirit of
Hi,
fwiw, I think there's actually a (reasonably) sane way to support
multiple JS engines, which we've discussed.
The practical path is:
* have same module system for both engines (done, thanks to robert)
* ideally, add let support to webkit (which would be good anyway)
* add to
Le mercredi 13 mai 2009 à 18:18 -0400, Havoc Pennington a écrit :
Debian appears to package it separately as libmozjs even. But it's a
big mess because then xulrunner doesn't actually use that copy or
something.
AFAICT the Debian xulrunner package uses the separate libmozjs and
doesn’t embed
Hi,
2009/5/13 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org:
AFAICT the Debian xulrunner package uses the separate libmozjs and
doesn’t embed it in its binary package.
Cool. (If only upstream would do this!)
But, code-wise, spidermonkey is just a smallish standalone library, is
the point.
Actually, it
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
I wanted to provide some gnome-shell perspective here.
In quick summary, we'd see including libseed in the GNOME-2.28 desktop
set as a positive step toward heavier use of Javascript in GNOME in the
future.
Porting
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Havoc Pennington
havoc.penning...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
- Alignment with HTML components in GNOME. The apparent trend towards
WebKit in Epiphany, Yelp, etc certainly gives a strong
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Havoc Pennington
havoc.penning...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
fwiw, I think there's actually a (reasonably) sane way to support
multiple JS engines, which we've discussed.
The practical path is:
* have same module system for both engines (done, thanks to robert)
In the prior discussion, there was a lot of discussion as to GJS v. Seed.
Since then, compatibility between the two has improved a lot, notably
with Seed adopting GJS's imports system.
At this point, most GJS code could be pretty easily ported to Seed.
Porting Seed code
to GJS might be a bit
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Hubert Figuiere h...@figuiere.net wrote:
In the prior discussion, there was a lot of discussion as to GJS v. Seed.
Since then, compatibility between the two has improved a lot, notably
with Seed adopting GJS's imports system.
At this point, most GJS code
On 05/12/2009 08:01 PM, Robert Carr wrote:
For 2.28, it may make sense to have both gjs and Seed as modules, and
try and keep code somewhat compatible.
It's still not entirely clear which JavaScript engine is going to end
up being better long term, so we might not want to completely commit
to
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Hubert Figuiere h...@figuiere.net wrote:
On 05/12/2009 08:01 PM, Robert Carr wrote:
For 2.28, it may make sense to have both gjs and Seed as modules, and
try and keep code somewhat compatible.
It's still not entirely clear which JavaScript engine is going to
Once again, I would like to propose Seed as a GNOME bindings module for 2.6.28.
For those not familiar, Seed is a bridge between the GNOME Platform,
and WebKit's JavaScriptCore interpreter.
Seed provides a standalone interpreter, and a C API for embedding
Seed as a scripting/extension language
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu wrote:
I was not planning to do this until .28, however a nice Clutter game
written in Seed was merged in to gnome-games today, and there is some
interest in being able to include this in .26.
I would like to propose Seed
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:32 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 05 janvier 2009, à 22:12 -0500, Robert Carr a écrit :
I was not planning to do this until .28, however a nice Clutter game
written in Seed was merged in to gnome-games today, and there is some
interest in being able to include
[Robert and list moderators: I sent a copy from another mail address,
please ignore that mail and reply to this]
Robert Carr wrote:
I was not planning to do this until .28, however a nice Clutter game
written in Seed was merged in to gnome-games today, and there is some
interest in being able
Some of these points are addressed in other emails, however I will reply
here also for clarity.
The reasons I would choose to use Seed over gjs (if hypothetically I were
not the maintainer).
1. WebKit, epiphany/devhelp, etc...and most (hopefully all!) GNOME
modules switching to WebKit, so not
I was not planning to do this until .28, however a nice Clutter game
written in Seed was merged in to gnome-games today, and there is some
interest in being able to include this in .26.
I would like to propose Seed (http://live.gnome.org/Seed) as a beta -bindings
module for .26
For those not
A quick addendum, I was incorrect about external dependencies as
gobject-introspection does not seem to be listed as a GNOME external
dependency or module yet, however it seems to be very well received, and
is already receiving broad use (Vala, gnome-shell, several other language
bindings...).
2009/1/6 Robert Carr ca...@rpi.edu:
A quick addendum, I was incorrect about external dependencies as
gobject-introspection does not seem to be listed as a GNOME external
dependency or module yet, however it seems to be very well received, and
is already receiving broad use (Vala, gnome-shell,
47 matches
Mail list logo
