7 Mar
2012
7 Mar
'12
7:54 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Timothy Pearson
<kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
Agree. That's why it must be gradual. How to do this is different
subject of discussion.
Yes! I'll pick an obvious example, KHTML. I would like to replace the
broken KHTML engine with Webkit using Qt4. Problem is, I can't link a Qt4
library into a TDE library or program due to symbol conflicts. Even if
you trick the compiler and linker, the program will crash at runtime
because the C++ runtime will not know which symbols (Qt3 or Qt4) to use
when function names and static members have the same name.
But that is what the linker does. Isn't it? Looks at symbolic names
and puts addresses instead. Therefore you shouldn't have name
conflicts at runtime. The crash you may encounter is because the
linker chosen wrong symbols to link together in one algorithm. But
this have obvious solution. Put the code you want to link with Qt4 in
separate module and link only with Qt4. I still don't understand how
is renaming better solves this. Could you please refer exact source
file and function?
??? I'm NOT doing that! Qt4 is lacking basic features TDE needs.
You mean there are some Qt3 features that are lacking in Qt4? I were
not saying about replacing classes of KDE like KApplication with Qt
equivalents. That is impossible and senseless.
No, (T)Qt3 will still be needed as the foundation for much of the TDE
code. Just because I can take advantage of a few new Qt4 features
***where appropriate***, to add new functionality to TDE, does not mean
that the need for the existing foundation of (T)Qt3 has been magically
replaced.
All I am doing is making it so that I can use Qt4 libraries in newly
written TDE code, for specific tasks where it is the best tool to use
(i.e. a well-supported library has been built with Qt4). Does this make
sense?
I suppose this could be done in more easy way without renaming.
On Wed, Mar 7,
2012 at 9:31 AM, Timothy Pearson
<kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
But why would you need both Qt3 and Qt4? Just choose one and stick
with it. Do you want Qt4, then migrate completely.
It's not that simple. Porting TDE fully to Qt4 is easily 5-10 years of
solid work with current manpower. Will
someone tell me or put the link to the description of why someone
would need to rename QT API?
I know that for programmer this is a disaster!!! This will strangle
the development!
I have addressed this issue multiple times on this mailing list. It is
impossible to use Qt4-based libraries in TDE, such as Webkit, while the
symbols from Qt3 conflict with those from Qt4.
You can blame the developers of C++ and Qt if you like, but unless we
want
TDE to remain niche by never integrating well, and also not being able
to
take advantage of all the work put into Qt4-based libraries, this
renaming
had to be done.
Can you put some examples of what issues with Qt4 this renaming addresses? It
isn't hard to adapt BTW, just tack a "t" onto the front of the old
"q<foo>" functions and static members.
There are standard API and standard documentation, and development
tools that are designed for this standard. Getting into this business
you doom yourself on endless job of synchronizing with Qt4 API
evolution. Not saying about the deep of current API coverage. That is
not the work for one man!
"Stock" Qt3 is available if it is needed, but I am personally using TQt3
so that I can take advantage of Qt4-based system libraries in the
future.
Tim
If f.ex. I will utilize reference countable pointers from Qt4, then
Qt3 will go to depreciation at once! So this TQt looks like all big
nonsense... :-(
Also, I'm currently down with the flu, so I may be coming across a bit
stronger than I should. ;-)
Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting