topi.maenpaa at intopii.com
Thu Nov 14 15:08:53 CET 2013
> It sounds like an interesting project.
> hard to expose C++ objects or classes to QML, depending on whether
> you want to use pre-created objects or create instances via QML
> declarations. Are there some JS examples which demonstrate why this
> kind of code really needs to be procedural instead, perhaps to
> describe an order of doing things, as opposed to declaring objects
> which will then handle events from sensors or from users?
There is a considerable number of things that cannot be done with the
current extension mechanism. The C++ classes registed as QML types don't
impossible to add custom functionality by modifying their prototypes or
to add "static" functions to the constructor object. There is no way to
implement custom functions anyway, which was possible with
QScriptEngine::newFunction(). Since moc doesn't support varargs, it is
currently impossible to create a JS function that would take a variable
number of arguments. And there is no setDefaultPrototype(). These are
just a few illustrative examples.
The extension mechanism in QML relies on the assumption that C++ classes
are designed and written for QML use. Furthermore, it requires that
these classes all derive from QObject. This is not true with existing
toolkits such as Into. It is designed for C++ use, but the classes can
be used from QML. Or rather could, if the interface wasn't a moving target.
+358 40 774 7749
More information about the Development