[Development] Crazy Idea
dhaivatpandya at gmail.com
Sat Oct 22 18:05:48 CEST 2011
Okay, so, people do want this to happen. So, the first things we should
decide would be what features/ideas one would need. I say:
Now, IMHO, if we do make it a QPA by just changing the backend, that would
be exactly like Wt.
Also, even though desktop apps have been written like this for a very long
time, webapps (again, IMHO) are better arranged as MVC.
2) MVC properly done
3) Some type of scaffolding script
4) The core needs to be extremely fast and async
5) Database requests are shifted off to another thread, etc. This is not
possible (well, it is, but, not very useful) in languages such as Python,
PHP, Ruby since they all use green threading, which works, but, isn't quite
6) Crash support, if something crashes, don't give a crazy error to the
user, figure out where it crashed, write to logs, and the web developer uses
an error page. Figuring out where it crashed is mostly where the work is
7) Qt libraries are used as much as possible
8) (this one needs community support to happen) Relation to scripting
What do you think?
2011/10/22 Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgquiles at elpauer.org>
> IMHO a proper implementation needs to be a QPA platform.
> Widgets need to be "drawn" in this "web" target, like in X11, Wayland,
> Windows, etc. The only change would be the low level primitives are HTML +
> Trivia: the first version of Wt used Qt instead as the backend. They moved
> to Boost because of licensing (Qt was not LGPL back then) and threading.
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:55 AM, <lars.knoll at nokia.com> wrote:
>> >From my point of view:
>> Having something here would be great. I don't think it should be part of
>> the essential Qt modules, but as an add-on it would be a very welcome
>> addition :)
>> On 10/22/11 7:09 AM, "ext Mark Constable" <markc at renta.net> wrote:
>> >On 2011-10-21 10:10 PM, Dhaivat Pandya wrote:
>> >> This seems like something that's way out there, and may have been
>> >> suggested before and rejected, but, I'm bringing it up anyway. What
>> >> would the Qt community think of a web framework devised around Qt?
>> >Speaking personally I'd love to see...
>> >. a web server similar to lighttpd but 100% based on Qt
>> >. an optional but builtin C++ FastCGI interface for the above
>> >solution, with Websocket support, so it can be as both a traditional
>> >webserver or a local backend to a HTML5/QML desktop system.
>> >Why another webserver when lighttpd, nginx, even apache, already exist
>> >as stable codebases? Because none of them allow me to build, develop
>> >and deploy them, and any web based projects, within QtCreator using
>> >CMake and Git. There is currently a complete development disconnect
>> >when deploying a typical HTTP based remote server within a Qt project.
>> >> Qt has all the stuff one needs to build a legitimate web framework,
>> >> connection to a scripting language (PySide, or any language with a C++
>> >> API, such as Lua), Sql libraries, async socket libraries, XML,
>> >> everything. We just need some (okay, not some, a lot) of code to glue
>> >> this all together into a well knit package. I'll await suggestions.
>> >Wouldn't Wt provide a lot of that? http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt
>> >Development mailing list
>> >Development at qt-project.org
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at qt-project.org
> Pau Garcia i Quiles
> (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development