[Development] Some Qt3D feedback

[André Pönitz]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 06:46:54PM +0100, Sean Harmer wrote:
> On Thursday 11 June 2015 19:42:55 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > On Thursday 11 June 2015 13:09:39 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > >> I didn't make any claim that "the use of a namespace for a Qt library is
> > >> new".
> > >> 
> > >> Whatever you rebutted was not my claim.
> > 
> > So, you believe there is no use in pursuing any of the questions I asked
> > here:
> > 
> >  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.devel/21775/focus=21865
> > 
> > Fair enough. That appears to be the mailing list consensus.
> > 
> > Maybe the wiki page for new modules should recommend coin flips to answer
> > those questions :).
> 
> I said I'm happy to discuss. I'm just waiting for some more opinions,

Well. I don't really have *more* opinions to offer, I just happen to
agree with Stephen on all the 8 issues he raised.

Specifically, for item #6:

    [Stephen]
    > Qt3DParamter might be better *and* more consistent.
    > Similar applies to other classes.

    [Sean]
    It's precisely because of these kinds of issues that we decided to use 
    namespaces in Qt3D rather than the poor-man's prefix name spacing. 
    [...]
    Name spaces are supported everywhere these days so why not just use 
    them, especially in a new add-on module?

That's exactly the kind of situation I was referring to in my previous
mail: This is *intentionally* introducing API inconsistency. It does not
really matter to me whether "poor-man's prefix name spacing" is
unfashionable or "we" consider it bad. It is simply *inconsistent* with
more than 200 of existing exported QQuick*, QSG* and QQml* classes. 

Andre'