[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 gobject-introspection port of pyjamas-desktop. he has a number of the examples already working. to emphasise the significance of this: * the damaged event handling which was added in by the webkit gtk team 3 years ago (without design consultation, after mark rowe ordered the removal of the original fully-working event handling without good justification) has been removed. the new event handling infrastructure is, i gather, no longer dependent *at all* on gobject signals. it should be along the exact same lines as the pythonwebkit bindings: a direct callback, directly called from the webkit event infrastructure. that means that event callbacks will no longer result in race conditions, instability and so on, which i warned you about, last week. * anthony has direct first-hand experience of what's needed to make the gobject bindings actually useful and useable. he will therefore be able to explain to the webkit-gtk team why mark rowe's under-informed objections to various absolutely essential features are, in fact, absolutely essential. in the intervening years (!! i can't quite get over the fact that the original work was done in 2008...) the webkit-gtk team may have actually encountered some of the problems themselves. the bottom line is that i have much more confidence in the webkit-gobject bindings, thanks to anthony's involvement, that anthony can help the webkit-gtk team to stabilise the webkit-gobject bindings, through the use of pyjamas-desktop as a massively-comprehensive 100% code-coverage testing environment. it is therefore *not* my recommendation that the OLPC team revert to the use of python-hulahop for their web browser "activity". this effectively leaves the python-hulahop code completely orphaned, and only relevant to the pyjamas-desktop "xulrunner" port. the question is, therefore: is it useful for the mozilla foundation to have a second test environment - by way of having the pyjamas-desktop "xulrunner" port still active? the reason i ask is because as has been demonstrated by that window focus bug, it looks like there's some memory corruption which has been completely missed, thanks to the narrow "drive" of the mozilla foundation to concentrate exclusively on firefox releases. but if the testing via hulahop was included on a regular basis, by the mozilla foundation, then it is not hard to conclude that that memory corruption bug would have been noted and fixed much earlier. l. _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel