On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Alan Alpert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Jeremy Katz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 06/21/2013 09:58 AM, Hausmann Simon wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I like this, but as a next step I think it would be good to get rid of > the manual JS code for saving. > >> > >> What about a general syntax of annotating properties? Then settings > could be implemented on top by introspecting for properties annotated with > settings tags and then save/restore then. > > My biggest concern about that approach right now is the scope of the > change. We can't back out language features as easily as we can a > module. > > I'd approve adding a Qt.labs.settings element, with the API specified > by JP, because it gives us what we need and is the most easily > changeable. If we get to annotating properties, we drop the > Qt.labs.settings element (after a period of deprecation). We can play > around with the backend so long as the QML API works, because while a > consistent and reliable on disk format is important for a complete > API, for a labs module I'm happy with just the QML API while we figure > out other implementation details. > > So I haven't really been following this conversation much but by amazing coincidence I not long ago happened to cobble together something that has an API very similar to what JP is proposing, it's worked quite well for me and I can thoroughly recommend the approach. So if anyone's interested in a proof of concept I have one. Although it is implemented using gconf for reasons of circumstance so not an actual implementation proposal. And the code split between two repo' is a little unfortunate, but hey the (mostly) same API works with c++ too. https://github.com/nemomobile/nemo-qml-plugin-configuration/pull/2 https://github.com/nemomobile/mlite/pull/4 Andrew
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
