notmart at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 10:51:44 CEST 2009
On Monday 14 September 2009, Tommi Mikkonen wrote:
> Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On September 14, 2009, Tommi Mikkonen wrote:
> >> Having said that, what I would also like is a harmonized API; having
> >> finally spend some hours tonight (after traveling in conferences for
> >> some weeks!) on JS Plasmoid development with Lively content, I
> >> constantly seem to have problems on the names of widget types etc.
> > can you provide some concrete examples?
> QFrame vs. Frame and QWebView vs. Webview is QtScriptGenerator and
> Plasmoids, and at the same time QtVertical in native Qt,
the type names of the plasma widgets are the same in the c++ api and the
simplified js api. plasma classes don't have a letter prefix since we have the
> QtScriptGenerator and Plasmoids. Another issue is with types when
> adding a Qt widget that has been instantiated in C++. At least
> documents that at times a QPainter etc is expected as parameter whereas
> Plasma uses name Painter etc. As the error message I get is 'script
> could not be initialized' or something similar when misspelling a class
> name, it is very frustrating to debug API usage.
> This is not a major issue, and any convention will be ok for me.
> However, if we have two scripting systems --- one wirh privileges and
> another without --- it will be confusing if type names etc. are
> different. An additional issue is that if we have these two sets, the
> restricted one should not fail without error messages if someone tests
> privileged APIs but give an error message etc.
> Personally, I can live with either API; both are probably fine for most
> developers but there should only be one. In a perfect world, we could
> have two, one for privileged apps and the other for regular ones. I am
> however worried that this will complicate the view a casual developer
> will get to Plasma widget development.
> Plasma-devel mailing list
> Plasma-devel at kde.org
More information about the Plasma-devel