Re: Epiphany extensions, what to do next

[Gustavo Noronha <gns gnome org>]

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 15:08 +0200, Xan Lopez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Reinout van Schouwen
> <reinouts gnome org> wrote:
> > In any case, what I miss in your pro/con list is the question of
> > accessing the DOM. Currently that's impossible with Python extensions.
> > If we gain this possibility (do we?) by declaring Javascript/Seed our
> > supported extension development platform, I'd say it could be worth
> > deprecating Python.
> 
> AFAIK using Seed won't automagically give you DOM access, you just
> happen to be using the same language browsers give people by default
> to mess with their DOM. What we need is C/GObject to the DOM
> (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16401), and when that's done
> both Python and Seed will be able to access it just fine. So unless
> I'm wrong this is a non-issue in our case.

I've discussed with racarr about enabling Seed to attach to the
javascript context of webkit itself, which would enable us to make
arbitrary GObjects available as javascript objects for the page to use,
and use the javascript objects available in a page in extensions. I am
not sure this counts as a pro for this specific problem, though, since I
am not really familiar with how current extensions are limited.

See you,

-- 
Gustavo Noronha <gns gnome org>
GNOME contributor