Re: Webkit2 porting

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 20:30 +0200, Carlos Garcia Campos wrote:
> Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 21:17 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 14:44 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Jim Nelson <jim yorba org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It would be great if the DOM was available via WebKitGTK and the local
> > > > > library did the IPC for us, but I've been told that that's not going
> > > > > to happen.  The DOM is a huge API and I can't blame them for that.  I
> > > > > do wish the separate process model was an optional run mode because,
> > > > > as I said, I don't see a lot of benefits moving to it for Geary.
> > > I think Geary is really the worst-case scenario here: a fairly large
> > > application that performs significant DOM manipulations in response to
> > > UI events, already written with the WebKit1 API. For apps that are just
> > > displaying web pages (everything not geary?) with no such compatibility
> > > concerns, porting should be relatively easy.
> >
> > Geary might be worst-case, but Yelp is non-trivial. It does some DOM
> > manipulation, and the whole way it pushes content to WebKit has to be
> > changed.
>
> Yelp is easy! :-) We don't actually need to change the way content is
> pushed to WebKit, I switched the code to use custom uri schemes for the
> schemes managed by yelp because I thought it was the right way instead
> of the the current approach of using fake uris.

Good to know, thanks. I'll try Real Hard to get that reviewed for 3.16.
But there is still the issue of the DOM access, as seen in #686376.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=686376

--
Shaun