[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-commits
Subject:    Re: KDE/kdelibs/kjsembed
From:       Harri Porten <porten () froglogic ! com>
Date:       2006-09-28 13:16:52
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0609281445340.4634 () pudel ! froglogic ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, ian reinhart geiser wrote:

>> By default it will just know about standard JS API but by extending
>> it with an "import" statement additional modules can be pulled in.
>> Now, I've implemented just a few of these modules and they are
>> nothing like what kjsembed offers. But maybe we can come up with a
>> plug-in architecture that has a small client that can pull in all
>> kinds of extensions?
> This is exactly the direction Matt and I are talking about now.
> Basically we want the QCoreApplication version by default, since it
> has an insanely small start up time, and then as scripters add
> features we use K and QApplications respectively.

What I envision is "kjs" to be nothing but what's already in libkjs + a 
plugin loader. Each respective plugin would then instantiate KApplication 
or whatever. This model seems to work pretty well with Python and other 
languages. And as it does not add much overhead I would add this part to 
libkjs itself.

> I think the goal that Matt and I talked about short term was to make
> all non-core Qt and KDE types plugins, so that we don't need them
> linked in by default.  I am not sure what the progress is on this
> though.  I think it was pending autobinder becoming more complete.

What I can take over is to implement an "import" directive (already did 
that actually but need to port it still) and a generic plugin mechanism. 
"import KDE;" would do the job in your case. One could of course read in a 
configuration file that would auto-load some plugins. The reason for 
keeping the client so dumb by default is the development of an ECMAScript 
extension API that would be shared with other vendors. I already discussed 
this with other "vendors" but still need to write a proposal paper about 
it.

If our plans are conflicting in some way (i.e. you need a fat client for 
some reason) we'll have to fight over the name each of us uses :)

Harri.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]