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.
+358 40 774 7749
More information about the Development