[mozilla people, please feel free to skip to the bottom of this, for
the conclusion - the rest is detail]
right: i've just learned something very exciting: one of the pyjamas
contributors, a very intelligent individual, anthony, has been working
with the webkit-gtk team to create a
You was replying a thread from Jun/2011. In this time the developers worked
in a Browse
version based in webkit.
Gonzalo
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:06 AM, lkcl luke luke.leigh...@gmail.com wrote:
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2
ok: one of the issues that i ran into on the original
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote:
You was replying a thread from Jun/2011. In this time the developers worked
in a Browse
version based in webkit.
yes. i'm aware of that. i strongly recommend reverting the changes made.
read what i wrote.
I have read you. You don't need repeat.
In first place, is really bad have this information now, and not 8 months
ago,
a lot of work was spent porting Browse to webkit,
and the result is no so bad like you say.
Of course, only few developers are using it, then do not have a real field
use.
The
[summary to brendan and chris: chris, brendan, hi, i'm cc'ing you on
this because the OLPC team have been forced into making a decision to
move away from using xulrunner technology, as a direct result of the
decision made to reduce python-xpcom to third party status: it's taken
this long for the
Note: Resent (as I needed to subscribe to sugar-devel).
On 12-02-21 02:32 PM, lkcl luke wrote:
pyxpcom is still actively maintained by toddw (activestate). I'm not clear
on what sugar/olpc actually desire here: the pyxpcom code works about as
well as it ever did.
there are only two versions
hi todd, thanks for responding here.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Todd Whiteman to...@activestate.com wrote:
PyXPCOM supports all XulRunner versions from 1.9.1 through to XulRunner 9.0
- versions are tagged in hg here:
http://hg.mozilla.org/pyxpcom/tags
... but debian has *already*
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
On 12-02-17 at 05:33am, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
better news: i've just confirmed that:
a) the removal of js_push_context and pop context was a spurious
error, those functions are now restored, confirmed as
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2
ok: one of the issues that i ran into on the original (flawed)
webkit-gobject development work, as well as the ports of pythonwebkit
to gtk and directfb, was quite how integrated the whole thing had to
be. there are now something like *eight* separate language
On 12-02-17 at 05:33am, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
better news: i've just confirmed that:
a) the removal of js_push_context and pop context was a spurious
error, those functions are now restored, confirmed as compiling and
existing (untested)
b) the usual critical
Daniel Drake dsd at laptop.org writes:
There have been various discussions in the past suggesting a move from
mozilla to webkit for the Browse activity and related components, but
I've never really been convinced: there is always a cost to switching,
and convincing-looking numbers from
Marco Pesenti Gritti marco at marcopg.org writes:
On 21 June 2011 23:23, Daniel Drake dsd at laptop.org wrote:
You could have been even more convincing if you had used this API:
http://webkitgtk.org/reference/index.html
(yes, its webkit1, but it looks excellent from a GTK perspective,
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728055
success!
http://lkcl.net/hulahop/
ok, for a given definition of success :)
i had to comment out the js_push_context and js_pop_context
(could not be arsed to deal with those) - you might find that
you have to put in some #includes for
better news: i've just confirmed that:
a) the removal of js_push_context and pop context was a spurious error,
those functions are now restored, confirmed as compiling and existing
(untested)
b) the usual critical pyjamas-desktop tests, Helloworld, JSONRPCExample,
KitchenSink and Mail
On 22 June 2011 12:54, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
On 21 June 2011 23:23, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
2. In order to get Browse, Help and Wikipedia up and running on
webkit, do you see the need for a hulahop equivalent? Or some kind of
sugar-level web widget
On 24 June 2011 13:08, Lucian Branescu lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
Just nitpicking, but gtk2/pygi is a perfectly good option as well, and
it may even work with sugar-toolkit (depending on the status of
python-gobject and sugar-toolkit).
According to a conversation I had with Tomeu and J5
On 24 June 2011 14:10, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
On 24 June 2011 13:08, Lucian Branescu lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
Just nitpicking, but gtk2/pygi is a perfectly good option as well, and
it may even work with sugar-toolkit (depending on the status of
python-gobject and
On 24 Jun 2011, at 13:08, Lucian Branescu lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see a lot of experimentation with html activities
outside the platform before we even consider integrating. There is
just too much unknown and possibilities, the ideas in this area needs
to be proven
On 24 June 2011 15:13, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
On 24 Jun 2011, at 13:08, Lucian Branescu lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see a lot of experimentation with html activities
outside the platform before we even consider integrating. There is
just too much
On 24 Jun 2011, at 15:56, Lucian Branescu lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 June 2011 15:13, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
On 24 Jun 2011, at 13:08, Lucian Branescu lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see a lot of experimentation with html activities
outside
On 22 June 2011 19:02, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
I think this is exciting and definitely a good area to explore, but at
this point I'm trying to keep it separate from the rescue Browse
operation. I outlined the reasoning here:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/WebKit
I totally
On 21 June 2011 23:23, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
You could have been even more convincing if you had used this API:
http://webkitgtk.org/reference/index.html
(yes, its webkit1, but it looks excellent from a GTK perspective, and
a breath of fresh air after seeing what mozilla put you
On 15 June 2011 05:58, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
There have been various discussions in the past suggesting a move from
mozilla to webkit for the Browse activity and related components, but
I've never really been convinced: there is always a cost to switching,
and convincing-looking
On 22 June 2011 12:54, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
I'm not sure. I think hulahop in principle is pretty much equivalent
to WebKitGtk + PyGi. In practice though I suspect there are going to
be differences on the amount of code required to write something like
Wikipedia and
The biggest finding that came from outside this thread is that if
Browse is to move to pygi to access webkit, the Sugar python bits that
it uses must also be gtk3/pygi. No mixing with pygtk2 is possible. So
we have a prerequisite on sugar (or at least parts of it?) being moved
to gtk3/pygi
2011/6/22 NoiseEHC noise...@freemail.hu:
Why do not you implement the new Browse in C/C++?
Sugar is developed as a Python-based platform.
It would have three advantages:
1. It could reuse an existing WebKit browser's code.
2. It would not depend on incomplete/unmaintained python bindings.
Unless you are proposing that all of Sugar moves to C as a base; that
may have its merits but is a separate discussion, and not one I'm
going to get involved with. Feel free to start a new thread / Feature
page.
I am not proposing anything. I just showed an option that no one
considered. I
On 14 June 2011 23:52, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
On 14 June 2011 20:58, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
1. I've only made half the argument above. Mozilla is bad, but why is
WebKit the solution? The key questions here are: is it embeddable?
Does it work well when
2. In order to get Browse, Help and Wikipedia up and running on
webkit, do you see the need for a hulahop equivalent? Or some kind of
sugar-level web widget abstraction? Or just direct calls into webkit.
From the point of view of the activity, Wikipedia and Help are using the
same code of
On 17 June 2011 18:13, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org
wrote:
Did you test epiphany? I think that would give you a pretty decent
idea of what is achievable without putting work into WebKit itself.
Not
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
With WebKit2, this all you need to load a web page into a GtkBox
So that's my understanding of WebKit -- it's easily embeddable.
I am not sure whether the API is as complete or as good as we want it.
IOWs, it's
On 17 June 2011 17:51, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org
wrote:
With WebKit2, this all you need to load a web page into a GtkBox
So that's my understanding of WebKit -- it's easily embeddable.
I am not
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
Did you test epiphany? I think that would give you a pretty decent
idea of what is achievable without putting work into WebKit itself.
Not in a while. Earlier builds on Ubuntu were very unstable and buggy.
Just
There have been various discussions in the past suggesting a move from
mozilla to webkit for the Browse activity and related components, but
I've never really been convinced: there is always a cost to switching,
and convincing-looking numbers from webkit supporters tended to be
countered with
I'm not a developer so some of what I write is here say but from what I know
of from following various upstream.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
There have been various discussions in the past suggesting a move from
mozilla to webkit for the Browse activity
On 14 June 2011 21:35, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Would a skinned version of Firefox Mobile work for what is needed?
No, as we need collaboration, journal access, etc. But (I didn't
include this argument as I lost the link) this response matches what I
read from mozilla
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
On 14 June 2011 21:35, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Would a skinned version of Firefox Mobile work for what is needed?
No, as we need collaboration, journal access, etc. But (I didn't
include this argument as I
On 14 June 2011 20:58, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
2. What is the state of Surf?
This is the existing webkit-based browser for Sugar. Does it work
well? Is it reliable? What are the gaping holes?
It works reasonably well. I couldn't implement cookies for example,
because that requires
On 14 June 2011 20:58, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
1. I've only made half the argument above. Mozilla is bad, but why is
WebKit the solution? The key questions here are: is it embeddable?
Does it work well when embedded? Do the developers support it being
embedded?
With WebKit2, this
39 matches
Mail list logo
