#2 Consider adding python support

closed
Syd Logan
General (11)
2
2008-03-11
2007-06-21
Syd Logan
No

Perhaps python would be a better choice for use as a scripting language behind Trixul widgets. Certainly seems like it would be a more powerful one.

Discussion

  • Syd Logan
    Syd Logan
    2007-09-24

    • priority: 5 --> 1
     
  • Syd Logan
    Syd Logan
    2007-10-13

    • labels: 940096 --> General
     
  • Syd Logan
    Syd Logan
    2007-10-24

    • priority: 1 --> 4
     
  • Syd Logan
    Syd Logan
    2007-10-24

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=740733
    Originator: YES

    Bumping this up in priority -- Python is so feature rich compared to JavaScript, one could imagine whole applications being written exclusively in XUL and Python, without the need for calling C++ components directly.

    Trixul was not designed specifically to address support for multiple scripting languages. However, one might envision extending script so that it is using patterns similar to other elements like buttons and so forth, where script has abstractions that are implemented by concrete classes. The decision to use Python or JS would be on the developer of the XUL document, it would be specified in the script element itself which language is used. I see no reason why a XUL document should not be able to execute both JS and Python scripts, though interoperability may not be possible (e.g., I would not expect JS to call Python scripts, or see its symbols/variables).

     
  • Syd Logan
    Syd Logan
    2007-10-24

    • priority: 4 --> 6
     
  • Syd Logan
    Syd Logan
    2008-02-26

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=740733
    Originator: YES

    This can't be a priority now, JavaScript is working fine, and there are so many other basic things that Trixul cannot do yet. Marking pending, and lowering priority.

     
  • Syd Logan
    Syd Logan
    2008-02-26

    • priority: 6 --> 2
    • status: open --> pending
     
    • status: pending --> closed
     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=1312539
    Originator: NO

    This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
    previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
    did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
    the administrator of this Tracker).