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!
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
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
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Timothy Pearson kb9vqf@pearsoncomputing.net 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!
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.
But why would you need both Qt3 and Qt4? Just choose one and stick with it. Do you want Qt4, then migrate completely.
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... :-(
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Timothy Pearson kb9vqf@pearsoncomputing.net 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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
??? I'm NOT doing that! Qt4 is lacking basic features TDE needs.
"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... :-(
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?
Also, I'm currently down with the flu, so I may be coming across a bit stronger than I should. ;-)
Tim
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Timothy Pearson kb9vqf@pearsoncomputing.net wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Timothy Pearson kb9vqf@pearsoncomputing.net 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!
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.
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.
Agree. That's why it must be gradual. How to do this is different subject of discussion.
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?
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?
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!
??? 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.
"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... :-(
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.
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@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@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
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).
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Serghei Amelian serghei@thel.ro wrote:
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).
I saw your cmake code in Trinity. You might want to look at my additions. We should coordinate our efforts.
-- Serghei
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@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
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 10:22:13 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Serghei Amelian serghei@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.
After stabilization of 3.5.10 cmake port I will publish it on github and I will accept patches.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Serghei Amelian serghei@thel.ro wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2012 10:22:13 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Serghei Amelian serghei@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.
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 Wednesday 07 March 2012 10:49:03 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Serghei Amelian serghei@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 will check, please show me the patches.
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" :)
-
Aleksey Midenkov -
Darrell Anderson -
Serghei Amelian -
Timothy Pearson