[Development] Pointer Handlers will be Tech Preview in 5.10

[Jean-Michaël Celerier]

Why not just Drag, Tap, Pinch ? (for Drag it'd have to be in a different
namespace than the actual QtQuick.Drag though)

Best,

-------
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:56 PM, J-P Nurmi <jpnurmi at qt.io> wrote:

> On 27 Sep 2017, at 17:35, Shawn Rutledge <Shawn.Rutledge at qt.io> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Sep 2017, at 16:52, J-P Nurmi <jpnurmi at qt.io> wrote:
>
> On 9 Aug 2017, at 14:10, Shawn Rutledge <Shawn.Rutledge at qt.io> wrote:
>
> […] So far we only have
>
> TapHandler - […]
> DragHandler - […]
> PinchHandler - […]
>
>
>
> Hi Shawn,
>
> Why are these types called “handlers”? Because we use term “event handler”
> for those methods that you override in C++? IMHO “handler” type names
> belong to the same category with “utils” and “helpers”, type names that you
> give to internal helper classes when you don’t bother coming up with better
> names. You have implemented a gesture framework with support for taps,
> pinches, drags, and swipes, so why not call these types “gestures”?
>
>
> The gesture is what it handles.  The reason the object exists is to handle
> events.
>
>  A TapHandler _handles_ the tap _gesture_.
>
> (subject verb object)
>
> If we just replace that one word with yours:
>
>  A TapGesture handles the tap gesture.
>
> doesn’t sound right to me.
>
>
> Why?
>
> The problem IMO is mainly that we have the habit of calling a Javascript
> block bound to a signal a handler.  E.g. a TapHandler could have an
> onTapped: { … } Javascript block, and what do you call that: the
> TapHandler's onTapped handler?  We could be more old-fashioned and start
> calling bound Javascript functions callbacks (they are just functions after
> all), but it's too hard to break the habit.  Or we could try to think of
> another unique noun with similar meaning for the handler classes.
>
>
> To the point. :) We may use the handler term in many contexts, but what is
> a handler, really? Most Qt classes handle something, but I’m glad we don’t
> have too many handlers. I’m not saying the name doesn’t make sense. You
> could stick that suffix to almost any class and it would make sense, and
> that’s exactly why I put it in the same category with utils and helpers. I
> was just hoping we could have nicer names. That’s all. These things are
> commonly recognized as gestures.
>
> Responder maybe, to use macOS terminology?
>
> Maybe Recognizer, I think I like that.
>
>
> Sounds familiar. Oh, QGestureRecognizer, QPinchGesture, QTapGesture,
> QSwipeGesture… :)
>
> --
> J-P Nurmi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20170927/e49a52e0/attachment.html>