ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Zoltán Balogh <zoltan.balogh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/13/2014 04:01 PM, 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.
>
> 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.


The reason is that it is easier to  deal with a non compilable project 
than with a project what needs to be compiled.

As far as I remember from the time when QML was born, there has been 
never a consensus on what the best modell to use QtQuick. Some say that 
QML is only to create frontend for the good old C++ based Qt apps and 
some say that pure QML apps can just be as fine and the QML plugins are 
there to extend QML if needed.

It depends who do you ask. The primary reason to promote the pure QML 
application development is that the bar for entry level developers is 
much lower when you do not mention C++ and compilation.

But note, that the Ubuntu SDK does not block anybody to create Qt/C++ 
apps with QML frontends instead of QML apps with plugin extensions. It 
is the choice of the developers.

Zoltan