Massif-Profiling Amarok

[Alejandro Wainzinger]

Will Smoke lower the scripting memory footprint to something more acceptable?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A couple of weeks ago I started looking into creating the Qt binding
>>> for QtScript using Smoke. I think it could work. I have some prototype
>>> code up in my personal gitorious. I should probably keep the PS3 off
>>> and get back to work on this. :)
>>>
>>> I had gotten to the point where I could see it was feasible to do, but
>>> could also see that it would be quite a bit of work. Thanks for giving
>>> some new incentive. :)
>>
>> On that note, the Plasma folks approached me at Tokamak 3. They also
>> need some form of QtScript bindings for Plasma, so I pointed them to
>> the bindings generator.
>>
>> They are interested in cooperating with the bindings, so maybe we can
>> join forces.
>
> That would be cool to enlist more people into this. (Though I'd need
> to work more on it to make the code less-prototypesque.)
>
> Do you know what their requirements actually are? If they just want to
> create an easy API, that's what QtScript is designed for
> out-of-the-box and Smoke would make less sense.
>
> If they're want a comprehensive binding to Plasma, or Plasma + chunks
> of Qt, then Smoke makes sense.
>
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>