Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Oct 2010 15:20 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Thread beginning with comment 447213
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Think about bindings too!
by RshPL on Tue 26th Oct 2010 18:29
in reply to "Think about bindings too!"
RE[2]: Think about bindings too!
by danieldk on Tue 26th Oct 2010 18:42
in reply to "RE: Think about bindings too!"
RE: Think about bindings too!
by Delgarde on Thu 28th Oct 2010 23:42
in reply to "Think about bindings too!"
This is really nice, modularization has done wonders to X.org.
Slightly related: it may be nice to decrease dependencies as well, in particular reliance on a QApplication or QCoreApplication object being created. I like to use Qt in my C++ software, including libraries. But it is preferable to avoid leaking this to library users, in terms of needing to make a QCoreApplication object.
Slightly related: it may be nice to decrease dependencies as well, in particular reliance on a QApplication or QCoreApplication object being created. I like to use Qt in my C++ software, including libraries. But it is preferable to avoid leaking this to library users, in terms of needing to make a QCoreApplication object.
There's a bit of a balancing act, of course. Gnome have traditionally had the opposite problem - modularisation taken to extreme, with new libraries constantly being added to the stack. Part of their effort in recent years has been to reduce that number by consolidating those libraries - e.g merging various UI classes into gtk, merging a lot of non-UI stuff into glib.
Qt comes from the opposite perspective - almost everything in one immense monolith of a package. I think the happy point for a split would be to break out the tools, break out QtWebKit, and to separate the UI pieces from the non-UI pieces (much like glib and gtk). No need to go overboard on breaking everything into a thousand little packages; just a few key divisions would seem in order.




Member since:
2005-11-18
This is really nice, modularization has done wonders to X.org.
Slightly related: it may be nice to decrease dependencies as well, in particular reliance on a QApplication or QCoreApplication object being created. I like to use Qt in my C++ software, including libraries. But it is preferable to avoid leaking this to library users, in terms of needing to make a QCoreApplication object.
(I know that many QtCore classes work without, however things like locales break.)