Hi, On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Carlos Garcia Campos <[email protected]> wrote: > My main concern is that we might end up implementing an extension system > or wrapping an entire API that nobody is going to use eventually. So, I > prefer to start with a simpler option that would allow us to implement > the complex one in the future if it's really needed. We won't know until > we start porting more applications that use more extensively the current > WebKit1 API. So, for now I think the best option is the second one, > leaving it open to implement 3 in the future if required by apps.
Given your explanation it also seems to me that going for option 2 as we develop the API seems like the most sensible choice. It seems to me a good way of figuring out if it's going to be enough for advanced users would be to see how you'd implement all the DOM API usages in Epiphany with 2 (or 3, if it comes to that). If you can do all that without having to expose the entire thing I'd feel confident about us being able to cover most advanced use cases. I'm particularly curious about whether it would be possible to deliver a simple extension mechanism that does not require exposing vast amounts of extra API that will be rarely used. Perhaps as you suggest using the C-API when possible would be the best choice. Xan > > Opinions? > -- > Carlos Garcia Campos > http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF3D322D0EC4582C3 > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-gtk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-gtk > _______________________________________________ webkit-gtk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-gtk
