[Development] qmlbundle vs Qt Resource System

André Pönitz andre.poenitz at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de
Fri Aug 9 22:05:24 CEST 2013

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:18:00PM +0200, Olivier Goffart 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.

This was pretty much my first thought, too.
> 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?

Whether it would have been feasible, or not, I don't know.

However, what I do know for sure is that nobody ever tried to come up with
a set of requirements and discuss the topic with the rcc maintainer.

The whole resource code (core + the rcc commandline tool) is barely 3000
lines of code. Might be not the nicest, nor the most obvious code ever, but
field-proven, and "just works". Someone might even be able to look at it
and find out.

<sarcasm> But why bother when re-inventing wheels is so much more fun.
And of course, the few thousand more lines of qrc tooling integration is
nothing to be concerned of, either. It will magically adjust itself,
at no cost. As usual. </sarcasm>

The refusal to even only consider re-use of existing assets is a huge sink
of resources.


More information about the Development mailing list