09.07.2020, 15:11, "René J.V. Bertin" <rjvber...@gmail.com>: > On Thursday July 09 2020 14:21:53 Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > >> I don't know how complex is said application, but almost certainly it would >> be easier to port it to Qt5 instead (and more useful to community, as Qt4 >> had reached EOL many years ago) > > I know, but you know what they say about things that ain't broke ;) > One of the applications (rather, suite of...) is KDE PIM. I don't even want > to try the current version of it, partly because it only supports QtWebEngine > (if I wanted to read my mail using Chromium I could just as well use the real > full-fledged browser I already have running ;) ). > > I can also do that just with the email that doesn't render correctly ... or > view that on my phone. > >> 2) using Qt4 in UI process and Qt5 in render process is not feasible as they >> share a lot of code > > I don't see the problem here, as long as we're talking about actual > individual processes?
Individual process which are in fact just different entry points of the same shared library. Building same files twice for Qt4 and Qt5 in the same build system will likely turn into maintenance nightmare, not to mention maintaining ifdefed code paths so that code could actually compile and work in both cases. > > FWIW, any Qt4/KDE4 application that uses KWallet functionality will talk with > the Qt5-based KWallet daemon nowadays, through the KDE4 wallet client API. Those are independent applications communicating over well-defined protocol, not a tightly-coupled system built from a single code base -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
