Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Kelly > <steve...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: >> > I would say most people are not using ActiveQt and CMake together, >> > plain and simple. >> > >> > For the very few who do, they are probably only using the Qt >> > application as a client (i. e. load an ActiveX component), not to write >> > servers. >> >> Aha, and the implication is that in that case, the post-build steps such >> as running with -dumpidl and creating the IDL type library are not >> necessary. Is that correct? >> >> How does one do that? By using the QAxContainer module and not using >> QAxServer? Are there any other post-build steps in that case at all? >> >> > Yes, that's right. > > When you want to use an ActiveX component (e. g. Adobe Reader), you embed > it using a QAxContainer. > > When you want to create an application that will be embeddable by other > applications, you create a QAxServer. > > Your application/library could use an ActiveX component and be itself an > ActiveX component to be embedded for others (simple case: you create an > ActiveX component which is an enhanced reader that "extends" Adobe > Reader), but it's not really common. Even less common using Qt (you would > typically use C++ or C# for this kind of task). And even less common if > it's Qt using CMake, for starters because being Windows-only, it makes > little sense (other than moving from one version of Visual C++ to another) > to use CMake for that project instead of plain Visual C++ project. All > that lumped together explains why we have never seen this.
Thanks for all that information. > >> Are those macros needed and useful? Very much so . Adding them to FindQt4 >> > would certainly make sense to me, too. >> >> I'm sure if they get written they'll be sufficiently generic to target >> both Qt versions without too much modification. However, if no one uses >> ActiveQt with CMake, do we need to do that at all? > > > I think those macros are not really hard to write and if those macros are > not available, we can be sure no one will use ActiveQt with CMake for the > next 8 years either :-) Well, at least it seems to make sense to commit the Qt5ActiveQt patch even without the macros as they can be added later. I don't think I have the base knowledge (or inclination) to implement them myself. Thanks, Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
