[webkit-dev] Re: WebKit for Panther

[Mark Thomas]

Thanks for the answer, but what are your TLA's ?. I guess SPI is private
APIs, but what is ToT ?

Ideally I would love not to ship a WebKit framework within our .app, but we
are a heavily based HTML application with scripting extensions 10.2 onwards
(i.e. Advance WebKit techniques session @ WWDC 05, touches very lightly what
can be done on using this technique). And there are bugs which we are
working around in earlier versions and new bugs cause us headaches, so if we
were able to ship a particular version at least then it would be always
consistent.

So that the idea/theory, and I guess when I understand more fully what/how
the WebKit has done it will give me an idea on the way forward. I'm hoping
that if it was the WebKit team idea that there would be PC version available
then the reliance on private API should be phase out from the source.

Thanks
Mark.

> On 24/08/05, Mark Thomas <maillists at coderus.com> wrote:
>>    So one thing which is confusing here that there has been recently a
>> 10.3.9 security updates which have had safari updates within them, so how
>> have they managed to build it for 10.3. I believed that this cvs tree was
>> their whole cvs ?
> 
> Well, they took the 312 branch and patched it a bit, and then built
> that. Apple has never had any trouble with building 312 on Panther,
> since they can use their own SPI headers. This is completely unrelated
> to being able to build ToT on Panther, since ToT is post-412.
> 
>>     As I thought that maybe the 10.4 deployed built framework would work,
>> that that is a no goer, as hits problems.
>>  
>>    Anybody know, ideally I would like to keep to 10.4, but customers don't
>> update when you tell them.
> 
> You shouldn't really be shipping your own WebKit in your app if
> possible. WebKit uses SPI, and as such is not guaranteed to work on
> future releases of the OS. Apple knows that as their SPI change, they
> can roll out new versions of all their components which depend on it.
> Unfortunately, you probably don't have that luxury.
> 
> -- Finlay
> 
>