ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Michael Hall <mhall119@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

The Qt.labs API definitely seems simpler, and has the advantage of
being compatible with other Qt-supported platforms.  On the other
hand, the propose Ubuntu Settings API has the added advantage of being
able to specify persistence and syncing on a per-group basis.

Would it be possible for the Ubuntu Settings to simply wrap the
Qt.labs.Settings and add the persistence and sync properties?  That
way developers can target it without having to change anything else in
their app, and also giving us the option of continuing that component
if upstream drops Qt.labs.Settings, of if it becomes official and
changes namespace we can simply update our component, app developers
wouldn't have to do anything.

Michael Hall
mhall119@xxxxxxxxxx

On 07/29/2014 12:26 PM, Christian Dywan wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> 
> the subject of settings has come up again recently and there've
> been Ubuntu.Components Settings under development which were
> blocking on CI for some time. Whilst it was under development some
> people tried out the new Qt.labs.settings which then came out. So
> it makes sense to review both fully side by side now to see what
> technology we prefer for storing app settings.
> 
> Zsombor, Florian and I discussed it initially. Nekhelesh, Michael, 
> Olivier and Michał got a chance to see it to get obvious questions 
> sorted out. Finally we want all interested app devs to have the
> chance to check it out, and review it before making a decision.
> 
> The basic requirements are 1) Store app settings 2) Easy to use 3)
> Can later be extended to support sync with the cloud
> 
> Both Ubuntu.Components Settings (based on U1Db) and
> Qt.labs.settings (exchangeable backends) can feasibly be updated to
> support sync in the next iteration - based on the technical
> evaluation.
> 
> Qt.labs.settings is officially experimental API and not supported
> by Qt. But it would make apps work more easily with other Qt
> platforms which is an obvious advantage. So that's the kind of
> compromise choosing Qt.labs.settings would mean.
> 
> This nice document was prepared by Florian with examples at the
> bottom comparing side-by-side the different APIs
> 
> Please everyone interested have a look
> 
> https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1ZC4whqRT1Hf1xg7czvElUWSJ6JzkKMdWamt56Vhl1eU/edit#heading=h.132afdtxso0j
>
>  Question to all reviewers
> 
> - Which API do you prefer given the examples and features for use
> in all of your apps - Please point out any benefits and drawbacks
> you see with either API and reply to this thread
> 
> Regards, Christian
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=SD2o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----