On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:52:29AM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > It worked up to a certain degree nicely in the build system by
> > de-selecting options, than quite a bit more by actually removing code.
> > Getting rid of all of JS was not obviously possible.
>
> Removing code makes result unmaintainable,
Sure, that's understood. I wanted to get a gut feeling on how
much gain will there for how much gain.
> while minimal configuration with existing options makes a good
> balance IMO.
That's probably easiest, but leaves e.g. the whole JS machinery intact
which I do not really want to have for a QTextBrowser-with-table-borders
replacement.
Of course, the situation is in no way worse than what WebEngine would
provide.
> > The result was ok-ish size-wise (and for me definitely preferable over
> > WebEngine) but the question is where to put to cut. In some setups
> > ("Want to see DevDays videos") even cutting multimedia plugins won't be
> > accepted by everyone. I.e. the "need" for a "full browser" is likely
> > to always exist, and that's currently served by "use external help".
>
> We have MediaFoundation player on Windows these days so it can work
> without pulling in Qt Multimedia
> and uses system-provided codecs, so
> enabling multimedia won't add that much. However, for multimedia content
> there is always an option to add external link, as this is not the kind of
> documentation you really need to have inside your IDE or in similar context.
Definitely not. But it's a point that some people tend to cite as
an "advantage", nightmare or not...
Andre'
>
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
