[Development] Fixing the DLL/shared/static mess

[lars.knoll at nokia.com]

On 4/15/12 12:35 PM, "ext Uwe Rathmann" <Uwe.Rathmann at tigertal.de> wrote:

>Hi Thiago,
>
>my interest is of course to benefit as much as possible from the ideas
>and solutions of the Qt development
>and I believe the best way should be to organize my code and build
>environment like Qt libraries do.
>
>So please let me check your list what might be possible for Qwt:
>
>> 1) where they are installed
>
>I wouldn't install Qwt into the same place where Qt is, because it works
>with different binary compatible installations of Qt.
>But of course it would be possible to do so for the same reasons you do
>it with a module like Qt SVG.
>
>> 2) whether they use qt_module_config.prf or equivalent or a future
>>replacement
>
>I'm not sure if this would be possible for code outside the Qt source
>tree ?

The Qt source tree is modularized, so there shouldn't be a difference for
Qwt.
>
>> 3) whether they follow Qt conding conventions -- including headers and
>>macros
>> to be used, like QT_STATIC
>
>I have the same code base for Qt4 and Qt5 ( like the creator ) what
>might require some extra ifdefs, but in general it should be possible -
>as long as I'm aware of existing conventions.
>
>> 4) library and API naming
>
>similar to 4.
>
>> 5) development workflow and other Qt Project rules
>
>I don't believe, that I could develop in the same release cycles as the
>Qt library itself ( f.e I have no idea yet what it means to adopt Qwt to
>QML )

Q add-ons don't need to be released in the same cycle. I think that
definition might fit nicely to Qwt :)
>
>The only reason why I'm doing the Qwt project for such a long time ( >
>10 years ) is because I only do it when I like to.
>If I had to sit down after my daily job only to keep schedules I would
>have given up long ago.
>
>But I guess this is similar for every project not sponsored by a company
>- what might happen to Qt some day too.
>
>> All Qt libraries are first-party: they come from the Qt Project.
>
>Do you believe it would make sense to develop a 3rd party library under
>the hood of Qt Project ?

We also now have projects such as PySide hosted on qt-project.

Look at the definition of a Qt add-on. I think that might fit nicely for
Qwt. In any case, if you want your library do live under the qt-project
umbrella we can most likely find a solution.

Cheers,
Lars