[Development] QtSC: Scene Graph discussion

Hausmann Simon Simon.Hausmann at digia.com
Thu Aug 1 20:25:45 CEST 2013

Interesting point.

In your environment where you are already building your custom version of Qt, how many processes do you expect to be running simultaneously that are also using QtSceneGraph (without QtQml/QtQuick)?


Fra: Laszlo Papp
Sendt: 19:30 torsdag 1. august 2013
Til: Thiago Macieira
Kopi: development at qt-project.org
Emne: Re: [Development] QtSC: Scene Graph discussion

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com<mailto:thiago.macieira at intel.com>> wrote:
On quinta-feira, 1 de agosto de 2013 17:57:03, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Hausmann Simon
<Simon.Hausmann at digia.com<mailto:Simon.Hausmann at digia.com>>wrote:
> >  What is the advantage of this approach over static linkage?
> 1) Not linking into more applications running.
> 2) It is also safer for the LGPLv2 license without an exception for static
> linking into commercial code.
> 3) shared library is more widely used so it is more natural for me.

Advantages 1 and 3 make no difference because you'll be building it on your
own. There will be no sharing of code at runtime. In fact, deploying a shared
library may also make packaging your application more (not less) difficult.

Err... 1) does not make a difference on embedded with a small NOR/NAND flash? Perhaps, you are thinking about desktop? As far as I can tell, it is such a big difference that we would need reject Qt if we only had the static linking option.

I still feel a lot more comfortable with 3) than without. So, yes, 3) is not necessarily a blocker, just a nice convenience, but 1)-2) are blockers against using Qt in that way.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130801/9501621a/attachment.html>

More information about the Development mailing list