On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Monday 07 July 2014 12:22:44 Lutz Schönemann wrote:
> > On 07/04/2014 08:41 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > No. I think most of this can be cleaned up nowadays. For some history
> see
> > > this: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/77481/
>
On Monday 07 July 2014 12:22:44 Lutz Schönemann wrote:
> On 07/04/2014 08:41 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > No. I think most of this can be cleaned up nowadays. For some history see
> > this: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/77481/
> >
> > Anyhow, as I said above - patches welcome. I propose:
>
On 07/04/2014 08:41 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
No. I think most of this can be cleaned up nowadays. For some history see
this: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/77481/
Anyhow, as I said above - patches welcome. I propose:
- We should get rid of the "raw" WebChannel support
If I understand th
On Friday 04 July 2014 15:12:31 Lutz Schönemann wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I've looked into the internal protocol that is used by QWebChannel and I
> think the usage of some properties is is a bit inconsistent.
Yes, that can easily be the case - the protocol evolved a lot over time.
> In every message th
Hey,
I've looked into the internal protocol that is used by QWebChannel and I
think the usage of some properties is is a bit inconsistent.
In every message the client sends to the server it has to set the
following properties (minimum):
{
data: {
type: 6 // an integer specifying the mess
