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 m...@milianw.de http://milianw.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
