ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Christian Dywan <christian.dywan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13.08.2014 15:10, Sergio Schvezov wrote:
> On miércoles 13 de agosto de 2014 10h'01:17 ART, Michael Zanetti wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 August 2014 12:13:34 Timo Jyrinki wrote:
>>> 2014-08-13 9:03 GMT+03:00 Timo Jyrinki <timo.jyrinki@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> We could survive a bit longer by distro patching qtchooser (another
>>>> workaround), but I feel that eventually we'd like to have more control
>>>> on the QML app startups
>>>
>>> For the Ubuntu specific new wrapper, discussion can continue on
>>> ubuntu-phone.
>>
>>
>> Hmm... What is the reason for not doing it like all the rest of the
>> Qt world does it? That is, having the SDK template generate a
>> minimalistic main.cpp and a qtquickapplicationviewer.cpp which does
>> the adaption for the platform. Now that the SDK seems to handle
>> compilation just fine IMO that would be the best option. Also
>> considering that in case we need to update something in there,
>> qtcreator already features a mechanism to automatically update just
>> that part.
>
> Only benefit I see is to be architecture all.
>
>> Additional benefits would be to only have a binary to run instead of
>> exporting paths, choosing some QQuickView wrapper and fiddling around
>> with qml file paths on the command line.
>>
>> Br,
>> Michael
>>
>
>
These redundant launchers doing the exact same thing all over the place
would waste power, space and development time… for what gain?

The reason that much of the Qt world have custom launchers is in part
due to the large base of C++ developers unlike the lion share of Ubuntu
app developers who can't even read C++. Also unlike Ubuntu components
several Qt frameworks require C++ code to do integration magic to inject
non-standard features which we do soley via QML engine features.

ciao,
    Christian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature