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 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 Seidel<esei...@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 Orlow<jor...@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 Orlow<jor...@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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
