[Sugar-devel] [Sugar-Devel] Sugar Web Engine

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 14:01, Lucian Branescu
<lucian.branescu at gmail.com> wrote:
> After much trouble getting hulahop & xpcom to work in the abstraction
> layer webwrap, I've decided to drop it and focus on pywebkitgtk. To
> this end, yesterday I got Browse to start and load pages with
> pywebkitgtk, but with several features disabled. I'll be working on
> getting all of Browse's features to work with pywebkitgtk.
>
> I've also looked at webkitgtk+'s API and I'm confident that switching
> to PyGI will be quite easy, mostly just renaming things.

I also expect it to be the case unless pywebkitgtk contained a lot of
non-generated code or webkitgtk+ substantially changed their API. And
none of them are very likely to happen.

Regards,

Tomeu

> On 16 June 2010 11:48, Lucian Branescu <lucian.branescu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, that doesn't solve any of my problems.
>>
>> I would gladly drop hulahop entirely (it's a mess and very low-level), but
>> several people have expressed concern that gecko might be a better choice
>> long-term. However, I have not been able to confirm any of their performance
>> concerns. In my tests, gecko always used more memory and was much slower
>> than webkit. Also, xulrunner is made first for firefox and second for
>> embedding, and it shows painfully.
>>
>> On the other hand, I can't decide by myself to use PyGI since it's too
>> experimental for a platform's main browser and the rest of Sugar doesn't use
>> it. However, the API of pywebkitgtk would be similar to webkitgtk+PyGI, so
>> switching later on shouldn't be very hard. Especially since pywebkitgtk's
>> author himself already did it.
>>
>> Because of various hulahop & xpcom quirks, webwrap (the abstraction layer)
>> is proving increasingly hard to write. I will give it a few more days, but
>> if I can't figure out a clean way to wrab both hulahop and pywebkitgtk I'll
>> drop hulahop entirely and let any future switching back to hulahop rely on
>> git.
>>
>> On 16 Jun 2010 11:07, "Tomeu Vizoso" <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 15:33, Lucian Branescu <lucian.branescu at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I've received eve...
>>
>> Just wanted to make sure you know that the pywebkitgtk+ maintainer
>> recommends using PyGI instead:
>>
>> http://janalonzo.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/using-introspected-webkitgtk-in-gwibber/
>>
>> That was written in January and since then PyGI has progressed greatly.
>>
>> I personally think that you should have less concerns than other
>> people that are moving to PyGI right now.
>>
>> As a general remark, I don't think it's a good idea to cling to
>> software modules whose authors are so willing to drop down and will be
>> less painful in the medium term if people start moving now.
>>
>> That said, it hasn't been decided yet that Sugar will depend on PyGI
>> from 0.90 on (see a new thread from today).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tomeu
>>
>>> Since it's already late into the project, unless someone has a better
>>> idea, I'll stick to fully...
>