[Interest] Qt5: Status of, "Add QtService to Qt proper"

[Charley Bay]

>> Last June there was a thread with the title, "Add QtService to Qt
>> proper" that discussed some tender-loving-care required to update
>> "QtService<>" to support Qt5.
>>
>> RECALL that "QtService<>" is a template add-on (not in
>> Qt-proper) that
>> targeted Qt4, and talk was to make it a non-template, and to add it to
>> Qt5-proper, probably in the "network" module.
>>
>> Original thread starts here:
>>
>> <http://lists.qt.nokia.com/pipermail/qt5-feedback/2011-June/000449.html>
>>
>> Some other feedback discussion here:
>>
>> <http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.qt5-feedback/76>
>>
>> QUESTION:  Where did this end-up in Qt5?

Ben respondeth:
> Simply put, I haven't had time to work on it.
>
>> If someone wanted a "QtService<>"-type thing (service/daemon) in
>> Qt5, what would be the recommended approach?
>
> I don't know if the original QtService<> Component would work with Qt5; however, I'd love to work with you and anyone else that wants to do what I originally proposed with an adjusted target - perhaps 5.1.

I might be able to help with that.  There's enough discussion on the
web about the value of a "QtService" thing (and its companion
classes), that:

(1) It has cross-platform value for many users

(2) I think it should end up in Qt "proper"

(3) I think your previous thoughts on this (and the in-depth
discussion on the email list) was well-thought-out.

For the casual reader, Ben has a couple blog entries on this topic,
the latest one that I can find (which references a previous one) is
at:

<http://clocksmind.blogspot.com/2011/09/qt5-introducing-qdaemonapplication.html>

Just so I understand, at a HIGH LEVEL, is the scope intended to be:

(?a) EASY TO USE.  Provide an easy-to-use API (like QApplication or
QCoreApplication) that implements a "service/daemon" in a
cross-platform way (e.g., Win/*nix/etc).  This implies a "blocking"
execution while the service runs (e.g., it's a service/daemon).

(?b) SIMPLE/STANDARD INTER-PROCESS COMMUNICATION.  Clients can access
the service/daemon in a simple-and-standard-way (e.g.,
reading-and-writing text to ports, etc.)

(?c) PLATFORM-SPECIFIC REGISTRATION.  Implementation properly handles
system-install/update, system-start, on-demand-start,
system-remove/uninstall, etc.

Did I miss anything?  Is this a reasonable/fair characterization?

--charley