7 Mar
2012
7 Mar
'12
5:01 a.m.
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!
7 Mar
7 Mar
5:31 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
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.
It isn't hard to adapt BTW, just tack a "t" onto the front of the old
"q<foo>" functions and static members.
"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
6:25 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
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.
It isn't hard to adapt BTW, just tack a "t" onto the front
of the old "q<foo>" functions and static members.
"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.
Jeepers, Tim, You just gotta get around to writing that TQt Interface technical article
for the wiki.... ;)
Jiving aside, when you do I'll be ready to help edit and proofread. :)
Darrell
7:02 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
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.
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... :-(
7:31 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
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... :-(
7:54 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
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
8:17 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 07:01:53 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
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!
Yeah, for this reason I forked my own KDE 3.5.10 and started to port it to
cmake (actually this email was composed on kmail 3.5.10 built with cmake).
--
Serghei
8:22 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Serghei Amelian <serghei(a)thel.ro> wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 07:01:53 Aleksey Midenkov
wrote:
I saw your cmake code in Trinity. You might want to look at my
additions. We should coordinate our efforts.
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!
Yeah, for this reason I forked my own KDE 3.5.10 and started to port it to
cmake (actually this email was composed on kmail 3.5.10 built with cmake).
--
Serghei
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
8:29 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 10:22:13 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
After stabilization of 3.5.10 cmake port I will publish it on github and I
will accept patches.
--
Serghei
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Serghei Amelian
<serghei(a)thel.ro> wrote:
[...]
Yeah, for this
reason I forked my own KDE 3.5.10 and started to port it
to cmake (actually this email was composed on kmail 3.5.10 built with
cmake).
I saw your cmake code in Trinity. You might want to look at my
additions. We should coordinate our efforts.
8:49 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Serghei Amelian <serghei(a)thel.ro> wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 10:22:13 Aleksey Midenkov
wrote:
After stabilization of 3.5.10 cmake port I will publish it on github and I
will accept patches.
You should look at them now before you've already done the same thing.
I don't see good reason for your fork and how do you suppose to
maintain it? Synchronize all the development done in Trinity?
Timothy, you see? People even start forking because of it... :-( I
confirm that I hate this renaming badly too (and there are 1000 good
reasons for that). But more I don't like forks! Forks mean that people
can't negotiate. We must collaborate, but not argue and compete to
each other!!! In condition of lacking manpower this is crucial to the
project!
Maybe we will find the solution which will satisfy everyone?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Serghei Amelian
<serghei(a)thel.ro> wrote:
[...]
Yeah, for
this reason I forked my own KDE 3.5.10 and started to port it
to cmake (actually this email was composed on kmail 3.5.10 built with
cmake).
I saw your cmake code in Trinity. You might want to look at my
additions. We should coordinate our efforts.
9:37 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] QT API renaming! Why?!
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 10:49:03 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
I will check, please show me the patches.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Serghei Amelian
<serghei(a)thel.ro> wrote:
[...]
After
stabilization of 3.5.10 cmake port I will publish it on github and
I will accept patches.
You should look at them now before you've already done the same thing. I don't see good reason for your fork and how do
you suppose to
maintain it? Synchronize all the development done in Trinity?
The reason is that I want a more conservative development of KDE3. Frequently
brutal changes in Trinity make me crazy :)
Timothy, you see? People even start forking because of
it... :-( I
confirm that I hate this renaming badly too (and there are 1000 good
reasons for that). But more I don't like forks! Forks mean that people
can't negotiate.
Tim have his roadmap, I have my own. My spare time is limited and I won't
waste it arguing about renaming, rebranding and future development. I just
don't care about these things.
We must collaborate, but not argue and compete to
each other!!! In condition of lacking manpower this is crucial to the
project!
Maybe we will find the solution which will satisfy
everyone?
The forking is not a tragedy, this is fundamental beauty of open source. If
you like, you can consider my fork as a "conservative branch of Trinity" :)
--
Serghei
4704
days inactive
4704
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Aleksey Midenkov -
Darrell Anderson -
Serghei Amelian -
Timothy Pearson