Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On September 14, 2009, Tommi Mikkonen wrote: > >> Having said that, what I would also like is a harmonized API; having >> finally spend some hours tonight (after traveling in conferences for >> some weeks!) on JS Plasmoid development with Lively content, I >> constantly seem to have problems on the names of widget types etc. >> > > can you provide some concrete examples? >
QFrame vs. Frame and QWebView vs. Webview is QtScriptGenerator and Plasmoids, and at the same time QtVertical in native Qt, QtScriptGenerator and Plasmoids. Another issue is with types when adding a Qt widget that has been instantiated in C++. At least http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Plasma/JavaScript/CheatSheet documents that at times a QPainter etc is expected as parameter whereas Plasma uses name Painter etc. As the error message I get is 'script could not be initialized' or something similar when misspelling a class name, it is very frustrating to debug API usage. This is not a major issue, and any convention will be ok for me. However, if we have two scripting systems --- one wirh privileges and another without --- it will be confusing if type names etc. are different. An additional issue is that if we have these two sets, the restricted one should not fail without error messages if someone tests privileged APIs but give an error message etc. Personally, I can live with either API; both are probably fine for most developers but there should only be one. In a perfect world, we could have two, one for privileged apps and the other for regular ones. I am however worried that this will complicate the view a casual developer will get to Plasma widget development. tjm _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel