[Development] Suggestion on QML portability

Andreas Aardal Hanssen andreas at hanssen.name
Mon Jul 16 19:59:20 CEST 2012


2012/7/16 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>

> On segunda-feira, 16 de julho de 2012 09.38.53, Andreas Aardal Hanssen
> wrote:
> > In Qt 4 we added obsolete symbols for Qt 3, and this never caused any
> pain
> > for anybody. Qt3Support was a well intended effort to either port classes
>


> Qt3Support did enable some compatibility features in QtCore and QtGui
> (especially the event loop and kernel), which means that CPU cycles would
> be
> spent for the price of having compatibility.
> We chose not to do the same in Qt 5. All the compatibility layer is made
> up of
> inline functions.
>

IIRC these were removed when you built Qt with -no-qt3support (e.g., was it
ChildAdded and friends), and we also never had any reports of people
complaining about the penalty imposed by leaving them in. The point I'm
trying to make is that adding obsolete symbols that call the preferred
symbol, and not the other way around, is enough to make life easier for
users of Qt. It's also great if the same symbol renames are done in QML 1
where it makes sense, but again this isn't something that needs to happen
in Qt 5.0.0.

-- 
Andreas Aardal Hanssen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120716/6b3f86ee/attachment.html>


More information about the Development mailing list