On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Marco Martin <notm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday 07 May 2009, Leonardo Franchi wrote: >> On Thursday 07 May 2009 11:48:48 Richard Dale wrote: >> > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Leonardo Franchi <lfran...@kde.org> > wrote: >> > > hola folks, >> > > >> > > so i'm (finally) looking into adding scripted applet/dataengine support >> > > to amarok. it's really easy and transparent and all of that (yay >> > > plasma!) but we have a minor issue. we depend only on kdelibs, and the >> > > scriptengines are in kdebase/workspace. >> > > >> > > i understand that most of them have external deps, which may be >> > > undesirable. Indeed, we'll most likely restrict all applets/engines to >> > > being javascript, so as to not require the user to install random >> > > *-bindings package. But moving the javascript dataengine to the plasma >> > > in kdelibs would really be nice. >> > >> > I agree that the python and ruby script engine bindings have more >> > dependency problems than QScript bindings, and it wouldn't make sense >> > to put them in kdelibs. >> > >> > However, on the other hand, the python and ruby ones are not really >> > equivalent to the QScript bindings in kdebase as they pretty much >> > cover the entire C++ Plasma Applet api, whereas the QScript one covers >> > a simpler minimal api. At one time, in the kde playground module, >> > there was work going on into developing some more complete JavaScript >> > bindings based on the QtJambi parser/code generator. So I wonder if >> > anyone is intending to develop the more complex bindings further? Have >> > we had enough feedback yet to know whether or not the simpler bindings >> > are sufficient for what most people want to do? >> >> Ah, I wasn't aware that the JS bindings aren't "full" bindings like the >> Ruby or Python ones. In amarok 2 we decided to limit all scripts two >> javascript/qtscript in order to a) avoid the mess of having scripts require >> certain *-qt4/kde4 bindings, which lead to users not being able to install >> them, and b) with the qtscriptgenerator bindings we get "for free" a full >> set of qt bindings. We then expose an additional qtscript API for amarok. >> >> We will most likely limit scripted amarok applets to qtscript as well. >> What sort of limitations do the JS bindings have? > you have access only to methods decalred as Q_PROPERTY or Q_INVOKABLE > all the plasma widgets export as properties most of their functionality but > not nativeWidget() (so it's not accessible the full api of the underlying > qwidget) Can you create Plasma widgets though? Maybe I'm completely missing something, but looking at the code I can only see a reference to a Plasma VideoWidget being created, along with loading things from a .ui file at runtime. Is it possible to have Plasma widgets in a .ui file?
-- Richard _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel