[untitled]
2 comments
I've used CEF in the past to implement a browser into an application. It seemed like that project was missing many of the new browser features added to the Chrome browser or took time to arrive in CEF. How does this differ from the way CEF is built?
CEF is packaged as a library that requires embedding in your final app. The standard IO API of Thrust makes it much more leightweight to embed and distribute.
Hey, how is it different from node-webkit or atom-shell?
node-webkit and atom-shell both embed a version of NodeJS along the chromium content module. As a result, their are usable only from NodeJS and create complexities when requiring native packages (these package need to be recompiled using the special nodeJS image)
On the contrary, Thrust exposes a standard IO API that is bindable from any language. Right now there are bindings for NodeJS, Go and Python. As a result these libraries are simply requireable or importable and can run with vaniall NodeJS/Go/Python.
We designed these libraries so that at post_install, a binary version of Thrust is downloaded automatically which makes apps based on Thrust distributable through the native package manager.
These are the two advantages that motivated Thrust vs atom-shell or node-webkit.
On the contrary, Thrust exposes a standard IO API that is bindable from any language. Right now there are bindings for NodeJS, Go and Python. As a result these libraries are simply requireable or importable and can run with vaniall NodeJS/Go/Python.
We designed these libraries so that at post_install, a binary version of Thrust is downloaded automatically which makes apps based on Thrust distributable through the native package manager.
These are the two advantages that motivated Thrust vs atom-shell or node-webkit.