On Monday, February 11, 2013 10:33:03 AM Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Monday 11 February 2013, Benjamin Poulain wrote: > > One of the differences is the way the Qt port works. Instead of using the > > JSC binding APIs, it uses its own JS Qt bindings. > > Would it be possible for Qt to move to the common code? It would make > > future refactoring easier as there would be one less difference to care > > about. > > I guess that would be possible, and if you continue to add more testrunner > methods using continuation passing style, we may need to, since I do not > think we currently have an easy way to pass a method through the Qt > bindings.
Yeah, I guess that is a technical argument in favour of switching over. > That said, Qt has the most convinient interface of all the DRT > implementations with the bindings automatically derived from the C++ > declarations. I would hate to see that go, and since adding a method to Qt > DRT is just adding the C++ method and nothing else, it is no worse than > adding an empty > implementation to all the ports that are using the common code. While I agree with you and also appreciate the fact that this implementation improves our test coverage for the bindings code a lot, the current "weather" in the project on the other hand "suggests" that we better get out of the way :( I'll start working on porting over to the C bindings (bug #109677). Simon _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
