QtScript considered dangerous
thomas.friedrichsmeier at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Thu May 24 10:28:41 BST 2012
-- Note: Reposting to follow Dominik's example of CCing kde-core-devel --
On Wednesday 23 May 2012, Milian Wolff wrote:
> We have port Kate away from QtScript.
I'm not sure, whether this is a serious suggestion, or just a way to catch
attention. In the latter case: it worked. In the former case, I think there
are some important reasons going against this:
1. AFAIR, there are some subtle differences between KJS and QtScript. I'd be
hard pressed to provide an example, but I know for sure that I have run into
some, personally. Some code that worked fine in QtScript did not work for me
in KJS (note: I was using kjsembed via Kross, then).
1b. While, certainly, any such incompatibilities could easily be addressed
inside the Kate code base, keep in mind that a switch of engine could also
cause trouble for users' custom scripts.
1c. Even if the above incompatibilities were a mere figment of my imagination,
KJS does have it's own set of bugs. These may (or may not) be more benign than
those of QtScript. They may be easier for us to get fixed, but that's because
there is no third party to point fingers at, in the first place.
2. Kate is not the only user of QtScript in the KDE world. Do we want to
switch all other KDE apps to KJS, too? Will that really be the most efficient
I think, on a theoretical level, we can easily agree that getting this fixed
inside Qt would be the optimal solution. So is this really totally out-of-
Well, apparently, the people who should take care of this, don't. That's
extremely annoying. But also, let's not turn to suboptimal solutions, too
early, out of frustration. So they are not willing to invest the required
amount of work, themselves. But would they accept a patch? And how hard would
it be to produce a patch?
I don't know. I have neither the skills, nor the right number of bits to be of
any help with debugging this. But I think this is the very first question to
think about, before thinking about alternatives: What about the proposed
solution, i.e. updating JSC(*)? Can you provide an estimate of how much work
that would mean? If that patch would be too large to be acceptable, is it
possible to identify and port the fix to this particular issue, in the JSC
(*) Just to point out the obvious, though: The bug appears to have surfaced
considerably later than the last update of JSC. Which doesn't prove anything,
but softens the evidence pointing to JSC as the (only) cause of the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the kde-core-devel