[webkit-qt] QtWebKit with reduced feature set for embedded platforms

[noam.rosenthal at nokia.com]

I think covering it partially with autotests is something we should aim for. Adding the minimal build of webkit to the build bots, like we did lately, is a good step in that direction and if we could gradually add some support for some more of those configurations it would be great. I agree with Benjamin that it's impossible to test all the exponential configurations and our customers understand that - on the other hand I can say with confidence that enabling a smaller QtWebkit is the biggest "wanted feature" for QtWebkit's customers.
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: webkit-qt-bounces at lists.webkit.org 
>[mailto:webkit-qt-bounces at lists.webkit.org] On Behalf Of 
>Poulain Benjamin (Nokia-D-Qt/Oslo)
>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:55 AM
>To: webkit-qt at lists.webkit.org; Suzuki Tasuku (Nokia-D-Qt/Tokyo)
>Subject: Re: [webkit-qt] QtWebKit with reduced feature set for 
>embedded platforms
>
>Hausmann Simon (Nokia-D-Qt/Oslo) wrote:
>> Adding the feature #ifdefs adds a maintenance burden and 
>clutters the 
>> code. On the upside it makes it possible to use QtWebKit in 
>much more 
>> restricted environments, with limited functionality though.
>> 
>> What do you guys think about this? Do you feel this is a 
>useful thing 
>> to have and maintain?
>
>Personally I like those feature. It allows some 
>users/customers to use Qt on very restricted hardware.
>
>
>I think it is impossible to maintain those stuff if the configurations 
>are not tested automatically.
>
>But if Tasuku maintains the kind of #ifdef he needs, why not? 
>Especially 
>if he is ok to maintains it long term.
>
>cheers,
>Benjamin
>_______________________________________________
>webkit-qt mailing list
>webkit-qt at lists.webkit.org
>http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
>