On Monday 13 October 2014 13:46:21 André Somers wrote: > Personally, I think that using string-based key-value pairs (whether the > key has grouped semantics or not) and then manually casting the value to > the needed everywhere you need it simply has no place in application > code in all but the simplist applications. API's need to be type-safe if > at all possible, and if not, the exposure to the non-type safe API > should be kept to a minimum. Further more: default values need to be > consistent. Allowing the application to access the backend from more > than one place, also means having the specify the default value for > settings in more than one place. That *will* lead to inconsistencies. In > our case, that means that there is only one class where there is > exposure to the non-type safe QVariant-based API of Qt, and that is the > settings class itself. The rest of the application has no clue, nor > needs to have any clue, on how the settings are stored: they are just > using type-safe properties with clearly defined default values.
I agree that we should have a code generator on top of a schema, so we have the defaults, types and key names centralised in one place. However, all of that builds on top of a central string-based API, which is required. The schema and code generator can come later. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
