[Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9
Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)
bstottle at ford.com
Wed Jan 18 03:51:50 CET 2017
On 1/16/17, 10:14 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" <development-bounces+bstottle=ford.com at qt-project.org on behalf of oswald.buddenhagen at qt.io> wrote:
>of course, it may be that this task is too complex to get right, in
>which case qt bindings for specific systems are a more plausible
>approach. i think this is actually what we already do with activeqt.
>but then the question forces itself why you had to create *yet another*
>distributed object system instead of wrapping an existing one. yes, easy
>type handling. see below.
The crux of the matter, in my opinion, boils down to a couple of things.
1) Creating a wire-format that works with other languages is a much bigger
undertaking, and one that would need to be integrated into Qt itself, not
QtRO. Based on the (lack of) response from others, it seems this is not
a palatable change at this time.
2) A Qt-to-Qt distributed object system can provide a rich set of features
leveraging Qt’s existing capabilities, without requiring a lot of additional
code by the user. Such a system doesn’t currently exist in Qt, would
provide value, and thus the request to move QtRO out of the playground.
*yet another* isn’t relevant unless you want to delve back into the wire-
format side of this discussion (#1).
For providing Qt new functionality, I feel the existing QtRO design is sound.
If at some point #1 becomes a reality, I would be glad to revisit a generic
More information about the Development