On Jul 27, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Lars Knoll wrote:
Could you explain what you mean by 'good reason'?
A JavaScript engine API that isolates clients from implementation
details and can be potentially used cross platform is valuable. The
files in the API directory represent an attempt to create one. That's
the only reason these exist at all!
I'd also prefer not having it in there. Still for Qt as a platform,
the correct typedef is unsigned short.
This API should have nothing to do with Qt as a platform. Any use of
Qt in the implementation should be a hidden detail.
To have this usable by plugins it would have to be a cross browser
API as well as a cross platform one. Are there any efforts on the
way in this direction?
Yes, I think there's potential for this as a cross-JavaScript-engine
API and hence a cross-browser one. No, we don't have specific plans to
make that happen yet.
We were really following ICU's lead here -- ICU being another low
level library not built on top of a framework like Qt or AppKit.
I do see that. In Qt, although we have lot's of the same
functionality as ICU built in, we chose a different path and used
unsigned short on all platforms (as it's 16bit on all platforms we
support).
Yes, and Qt also has its own JavaScript engine.
I'd really like this API to be independent of the high level framework
it's being used with, and I think it's unfortunate that Qt is now
mentioned in the header. I'd prefer a different solution.
-- Darin
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
