[Sugar-devel] Did someone say Webkit?
tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net
Thu Apr 29 03:50:50 EDT 2010
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 22:10, Sayamindu Dasgupta <sayamindu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Lucian Branescu
> <lucian.branescu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There already is a mostly complete pywebkitgtk activity, Surf.
>> There has been a lot of debate on whether webkit is better than gecko
>> for our purposes. I also plan to only support what is reasonably easy
>> to support and let the abstraction layer be leaky.
>> This way, the new Browse can much more easily be ported to another web
>> engine if needed. In fact, as the abstraction layer grows more
>> complete, Browse can be 'ported' to the rest of the abstraction layer
>> (as opposed to AbstractBrowser+hulahop events which would be the first
> Something which concerns me is the relative lack of maintainer
> activity for pywebkitgtk. For example,
> http://code.google.com/p/pywebkitgtk/issues/detail?id=44 lists an
> issue which was reported in December last year, and there has been no
> feedback on it (there is a proposed patch as well). The fix for the
> issue would help address a few crashers in Read in F-12 and above.
> Of course, as we move to gobject-introspection and friends, this
> should become less of a concern.
Maybe the time is right for such a move. PyGI has seen its first
release and distros are starting to package it, and static bindings
are losing momentum or simply don't exist for some libraries.
I'm not saying the shell can drop the static bindings for 0.90 but
some activities could definitely start earlier.
As an aside, both Collabora and Igalia has shown interest in lending a
hand with WebKitGTK+, please be sure to keep the upstream developers
on the loop and mention it's for Sugar.
>> On 26 April 2010 03:20, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 18:07 +0100, Lucian Branescu wrote:
>>>> My GSoC project involves building an abstraction layer above
>>>> pywebkitgtk/hulahop (wiki/AbstractBrowser).
>>>> While the project itself isn't related, this abstraction layer and one
>>>> of it's lower layers (i.e. pywebkitgtk) would become a dependency of
>>>> the sugar toolkit.
>>> Very interesting. Would your work make it possible to switch the Browse
>>> activity from XPCOM to Webkit?
>>> If there were no loss of features, would it be easier for you to switch
>>> the Browse activty from hulahop to pywebkitgtk without developing an
>>> abstraction framework for both?
>>> // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
>>> \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/
> Sayamindu Dasgupta
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the Sugar-devel