Oliver, I could say the same about GLSL, but it's a huge help in my work, so I won't.
The proposal is to better enable multiple VMs. Their work would lower the costs of introducing Python. It -may- help with LLVM integration to the DOM. I can hope. -Charles On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote: > What is the benefit to the project in exposing an additional (non > standardized) language to the web? All the bindings that webkit currently > provides to are either standardized EcmaScript or platform specific bindings > used by native code developers embedding webkit. > > Adding an additional web facing language (that isn't standardized) doesn't > seem beneficial to the project, if anything it seems harmful (cf. VBScript in > IE). > > Anyway if we were to add an additional language the language people have been > asking for for years is Python which is already extremely popular and well > known so it seems that it would be a much better choice to expose, but even > then it seems like a bad idea. > > --Oliver > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Vijay Menon wrote: > >> Hi Per, >> >> At a high-level, the idea is pretty simple. We want to be able to run >> another VM along a JS one. For example, if we see a Dart script on a web >> page, we want the Dart VM to be able to handle it. If we see a JS script, >> we want the JS one to handle it. Similarly, if an event listener on a page >> is triggered, we want to forward to the appropriate VM to run the user >> listener code. >> >> The changes here are mostly about refactoring some classes (e.g., >> ScriptController, ScheduledAction) to add that extra dispatch. >> >> I'm not familiar enough with the JavaFX model, but this may be useful if you >> want to provide direct access from Java to the DOM via Java bindings. Do >> you have a pointer on how you're handling multiple VMs in WebKit today? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Vijay >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Per Bothner <per.both...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 12/05/2011 09:26 AM, Vijay Menon wrote: >> We’re planning to create a multi-vm branch on webkit.org >> <http://webkit.org> to experiment with this idea. Our goal with this >> >> branch is to (a) demonstrate the above points and (b) show that we can >> do this without degrading JavaScript performance or the WebKit >> development experience. If successful, we’d like to submit these >> changes to WebKit trunk. We welcome your feedback. >> >> What is there to provide feedback on? Asking people to provide feedback >> on a huge patch dump seems unreasonable. >> >> Why did you choose the approach you did? >> Is there a planning document or white-paper? >> What changes did you make at a *high* level - not a set of patches? >> Did you run into problems or have to decide between alternative solutions? >> >> This may be interesting to the webnode portion of Oracle's JavaFX. We >> already have to deal with multiple VMs: The JSC JavaScript VM and the Java >> VM. >> Having a standard and more efficient way of combining them might be helpful. >> Likewise more direct access from Java to the WebKit core might be helpful, >> though the standard DOM bindings don't require JavaScript. >> >> I don't know if a WebKit port using Nashorn (Oracle's next-generation >> JavaScript >> implementation on the JVM) will be helped by a multi-VM WebKit, or make it >> irrelevant (from Oracle's point of view, of course). >> -- >> --Per Bothner >> per.both...@oracle.com p...@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
