Qt 5.6/QtWebkit

[Milian Wolff]

On Donnerstag, 17. März 2016 14:52:15 CET René J. V. Bertin wrote:
> Aleix Pol wrote:
> > WebKit integration was done through forking then integrating. It was
> > awkward because merging upstream changes meant rebasing our work on
> > theirs.
> > That's why it's Chromium is better in this regard, you get to interact
> > the upstream component without forking it, AFAIU.
> 
> You mean Chromium is used as a sort of external library with a more or less
> thin wrapper on top/around it?

Yes, that is pretty much it. See also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5zKGmeYN0

and related videos if you want to educate yourself on the matter.

> If so it seems it should have been possible to reimplement QtWebKit using a
> similar approach with probably far fewer API changes.

Which WebKit implementation would you have chosen? The GTK one?

> Not that that matters now ... for those of us who are on (readily) supported
> platforms.

Yes, this is a waste of time.

-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20160318/1650aed9/attachment.sig>