Hi Paul, On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Paul Olav Tvete <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 17 April 2012 03:57:16 ext Girish Ramakrishnan wrote: >> As per the previous discuss, I renamed all the _qpa.h to _p.h with a >> couple of helper scripts > > I just added the following "-1" comment on gerrit: > > I do not agree with this change. We have made a difference between public API > and plugin API, and this is different from private implementation detail. > > The rest of the Lighthouse team are also skeptical. The main issue, as far as > I > can see, is documentation. This can be solved much in a much simpler way by > using the \internal tag, as discussed earlier. There should also be a warning > in > the _qpa.h files, but it shouldn't be the "don't even think of using this > file" > warning from the _p.h file; these files are there for platform plugin authors > to use. >
I marked them all as internal, preliminary and ingroup qpa for qdoc with a718a99438aaca7d4cd4379726a8e131d3c4bf89. I also added the 'we mean it' header (the one which you don't want) in 5369f506867532b039c7b2300d8319ff925b1434. I can change that header depending on the outcome of this discussion :) The current problems are: 1. _qpa.h ends up the QtGui master file. This means code completion in qt-creator. Since we have handle(), this means users will use these functions without thinking about the impact. 2. _qpa.h is now a new convention that end users need to be aware of. qdoc also creates the forwarding header #include <ClassName> for these files. What is the QPA team's suggestion to solve the above problems? (Fix syncqt, add pragmas to tell creator to stop processing them and/or educate people about _qpa headers? Do you guys also want people to develop plugins using creator? Do you guys even think the current state of affairs is not acceptable?). Girish _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
