Re: Webkit-gtk and MacOSX

On Aug 25, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Kalle Vahlman wrote:

2009/8/26 John Ralls <jralls ceridwen us>:
Thank you both for hashing this out for me. I'll persevere with getting Webkit-Gtk to build with quartz, then. I'm not sure I agree that it's "not
that big": WebKit.framework clocks in at 78M.

Whatever the WebKit.framework is, with that size it's bound to include
something in addition to the WebKit library. The shared library is
just 15MB on Linux.

I don't think we are still missing *that* much API after all :)

Well, first off, Webkit drags in a bunch of dependencies (libsoup comes immediately to mind, but there are others) which aren't necessarily required by other parts of the application being bundled.

Another major contribution is that MacOSX application binaries are roughly twice as big as Linux binaries because they must support two architectures (intel and power-pc) . Webkit is 4x, because it supports 32-bit and 64-bit for each. Even with all of that, the WebKit library itself (the equivalent of on Linux) is only 7M. The WebCore library, tucked inside its own framework bundle inside WebKit.framework, is 63M, also with 4 architectures. There are also icon files, translations, and an application binary or two buried in each framework to account for the rest. Dividing 63 + 7 by 4 gets 17.5, so the single- binary Linux equivalent isn't that much different. I'm not at this point going to support 64-bit, so I guess I can expect WebKit-Gtk to add 43M (35M of binary and 8M of support stuff) to a client app download, assuming the person doing the bundling wants to support PPC.

Since WebKit is already on every mac, it seems a waste of bandwidth, but if it's the only way to get WebKit to work with Gtk, it doesn't really matter.

John Ralls

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]