On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 23:57:48 you wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:48:22AM -0800, Alan Alpert wrote: > > > We also need to find out whether we can come up with something which > > > QtWidgets users can migrate to (the QWidget* in the QAction API is > > > quite niche, and not necessarily ideal API anyway). Possibly even > > > investigating whether QAction can be implemented in terms of a new > > > QGuiAction (?) API should be done. This can't be QML-only. There > > > needs to be C++ backing too. > > > > Why can't this be QML-only? For the set of controls exposed in > > C++-only we have a C++-only Action API. When we add a set of controls > > exposed in QML-only we can have a QML-only Action API. We don't > > currently have a C++ UI something which QtWidget users can migrate to, > > we'd need to consider that first before trying to make this new API > > fit in with whatever that would be. > > The missing _easy_ accessibility from C++ is _the_ pain point of the > whole QML story right now from a "medium sized application" point of > view. It would be really nice to get rid of that divide, not to pile > up more code that's not addressing both sides.
+11. > > > I agree there should be a migration path for existing QAction users, > > and that we should support hybrid applications. > > Right. And not as after-thought, but as first class citizen. Yes, yes, yes! > > > But there are other ways to support those use cases than adding a > > C++ API for the new Actions. My initial thought is something like a > > QActionBridge which can take a QAction or a QML Action to start with > > and then generates the other on the fly. It's not pretty, but it's a > > lot easier than abstracting out a QGuiAction and still allows you to > > get a reference to the other type if you need the interoperability. > > That's already an implementation detail. It does indeed not have to be > the same object, and it does not have to have _exactly_ the same > interface. But it has to be "highlevel", and one has to be able to > easily shift stance, i.e. move things from one side of the divide to > the other without much ado. Yes. > This sort of implies that the interfaces, > down to property names, should be as close as possible - even if the > "using" languages are quite different. Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <stephen.ke...@kdab.com> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
