[Development] QML and JavaScript extensions

Topi Mäenpää topi.maenpaa at intopii.com
Thu Nov 14 17:01:08 CET 2013

On 11/14/2013 04:43 PM, Robin Burchell wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Topi Mäenpää <topi.maenpaa at intopii.com> wrote:
>> Or rather could, if the interface wasn't a moving target.
> If an interface is a moving target, that means that trying to promise
> compatibility for it is generally a bad idea.

I don't quite get this. Can you elaborate? I was trying to say that the 
stuff I'm trying to do is doable in principle as proven by the couple of 
different implementations made so far. But every new release of Qt makes 
me hold my breath because I know I have used features that aren't 
promised to be available.

> Once something is made public, you're stuck with it. For a very long
> time, and maybe even forever if people get too attached to it. You
> can't go back on that, so you need to be very, very sure you'll be
> happy with it. As evidenced by the v8 to v4vm change, we aren't there
> yet. And once we do expose it, we tie our hands from making future
> changes that might be in our benefit.

This is true, but also a common excuse. I have seen it being used to 
block quite a few feature requests in many projects. Now, however, we 
already have a pretty good API definition: QScriptEngine already 
provided just about everything that was needed. All those things are 
doable in v8, and I bet also in v4vm. It is just a matter of writing a 
few interface classes that hide the implementation details. That would 
free extension developers from the burden.

Topi Mäenpää
Co-founder, Intopii
+358 40 774 7749

More information about the Development mailing list