[PySide] PySide evaluation

Aaron Richiger a.richi at bluewin.ch
Mon Jan 14 22:23:03 CET 2013


I'm glad about the amount of traffic on the mailing list. Such 
discussions are either the end of a project or the beginning of a new 
process. Let's hope it's the first step towards the next PySide 
generation. The times of describing a problem and waiting for the 
solution of the development team are definitely over, so if we want this 
project to continue, we have to help ourselves. I think, before deciding 
implementation details, we have to stand one step back and answer the 
following questions one after the other:

- What are our goals for PySide?
- Which development team would be available?
- How much money is needed/available?

With this information, we can decide which of the defined goals are 
realistic to implement...
To get, document and archive this information, I created a little 
survey. Please do not answer the questions now already, because I would 
like to get the feedback of some of you about missing/superfuous questions.

Could some of you visit the following link and just click "Continue" 
until the end, read everything, but not submit or answer anything and 
give me some feedback:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHVNa1d3dVpvdFdJV1U3THBxVVk2Tnc6MQ

Thanks. Then we can start the official survey tomorrow or so.

Cheers
Aaron



Am 14.01.2013 19:16, schrieb John Ehresman:
> On 1/14/13 12:18 PM, Fabien Castan wrote:
>>      I'm not enthusiastic about a rewrite using swig; it seems to be a lot of
>>      work for questionable benefits.
>>
>> The main benefit could be to get a bigger community and concentrate
>> efforts on the binding rules, instead of working on a binding tool.
> I don't think the binding tool as needing a lot of effort.  We do need
> more people fixing bugs and improving the binding rules, but that is the
> case with either tool.  If we were starting from scratch, I'd think swig
> would be something to look at, but we aren't starting from scratch.
>
>>      I think much of the work with PySide is
>>      writing a Python binding given the specifics of how Qt works so it's
>>      less about using a semi-generic tool such as swiq or shiboken and more
>>      about how Qt object lifetime works.
>>
>> Yes, but users also need to bind their own widgets... And your widgets
>> use your core objects... so you need to use the same binding
>> tool everywhere.
>> A generic binding tool could help for that.
> You are correct that users need to either use one binding tool for all
> qt related interfaces or do extra work to use something else.  This
> would be true with swig or shiboken or anything else.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> PySide mailing list
> PySide at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside




More information about the PySide mailing list