El mar, 30-08-2016 a las 06:10 -0500, Michael Catanzaro escribió: > I'm OK with freezing the bindings. I'm disappointed in that these are > a > killer feature for us and they'll never get improved now, but > generating them seems to be causing too many problems that we cannot > easily solve.
why do you say they are never going to be improved? we haven't even started to decide what we are going to do. The only change for now is that they are not going to be auto-generated. > On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 08:54 +0200, Carlos Garcia Campos wrote: > > > > haha, no, of course I'm not, but I'm not Ok with the WebKit2 rules > > either and I just live with that :-) Anyway, I think freezing the > > GObject API is harmless and it's better for everybody. > > The difference is that the GObject bindings are a seriously difficult > issue for Apple that materially slows down their development (or at > least appears to me to do so). It's impressive how much extra effort > Apple devs (hi Chris) have spent trying to keep our bindings building > (thanks!), but I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to do so. > As much as we appreciate it, really nobody should be spending an > afternoon uploading speculative patches to try to please our bindings > generator. Anyway, if we freeze the API, this becomes a moot point. > > WebKit2 is totally different. When WebKit2 breaks (which has > fortunately become much rarer nowadays than it used to be) it's > usually > something very very easy to fix -- a function gains an extra > parameter > or a pointer becomes a reference or something -- and it just feels > borderline spiteful to not spend five minutes with 'git grep' to > avoid > breaking us. It's not as if WebKit2 is somehow less important to us > than WebCore.... I guess you never had to deal with any failure. > Michael > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
