[Development] qmlbundle vs Qt Resource System

Alan Alpert 416365416c at gmail.com
Thu Aug 8 20:31:43 CEST 2013

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Olivier Goffart <olivier at woboq.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 August 2013 08:59:26 Alan Alpert wrote:
>> I don't know specifically about why it wasn't built on top of QRC, but
>> my guess is the performance cost. qmlbundle is more intended as a
>> performance optimization for deployed applications than a deployment
>> optimization, unlike QRC which just happens to make some deployed apps
>> faster.
> My wild impression would be that it is just the NIH syndrome, as with many
> other things inside the core of QML.
> If QRC was not fast enough, it could most likely have been improved with very
> little changes to fit the requirement. They could have improved it, or asked
> for it to be improved.  We are in the same team, are we not?

First off, we're both just speculating and if you're guessing that it
could be improved with very little changes then others can guess that
it would take massive changes :P .

Secondly even if we were/are in the same team (the lines grow harder
to draw all the time :( ), don't underestimate the communications
overhead from the other side of the world. Even if anyone from
Brisbane was interested in speaking up these days, it would probably
take a week of back and forth on the mailing list just to convey the
basic concept successfully (at a rough max of one email a day). It
would be quicker to implement the qmlbundle prototype (practically all
they've done) than to do the discussion with the experts as to whether
QRC could meet the requirements and how much work it would take.

Alan Alpert

More information about the Development mailing list