[Interest] 5.8 Features?

Mon Jun 27 21:04:46 CEST 2016

Hi,

On 27/06/2016 19:14, Jason H wrote:
> That's exactly my worry too. So far, I've had a number of mobile devs like you agree with me, but how do we take it to the next level and get the Qt company on board and actually do something?

As already mentioned:

1) Get a commercial license and pressure your sales contact.
2) Pay someone to contribute on your behalf.
3) Contribute yourselves - this is what happened with Qt 3D.

>
> What's irritating me is that there aren't any other killer features competing. It also seems that these issues could be fixed relatively quickly if the trolls were to focus on it. I think adding something like 3D is much more complicated and affects far fewer people.

Depends upon your use cases. 3D can be very important for games 
(including mobile), scientific/engineering visualisation, and is gaining 
a lot of interest in automotive IVI. But 3D is something that I wanted 
to work on, so I did.

If you are interested in more mobile related features, then please do 
consider contributing. This can be anything from coding through to 
triaging JIRAs. I'm sure there will be others who will get involved too. 
I don't work for The Qt Company so I can't speak for their priorities 
but they have just released Qt Quick Controls 2 to be lighter weight for 
better performance on constrained systems.

Cheers,

Sean

>   
>   
> Qt 5.7 added two mobile features:
> - NFC (Android) (Also reported as a 5.6 feature)
> - Android Services
>
> While any addition is good, I find it hard that NFC was more missed that notifications.  Could we possibly come up with a "mobile features" priority list and help focus what gets delivered?
> Say, with a minimum of 1 (or more) feature(s) per X.Y release?
>
>
>
> ---
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 at 11:29 AM
> From: "Daniel França" <daniel.franca at gmail.com>
> To: "interest at qt-project.org" <interest at qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] 5.8 Features?
>
> +1
> I love Qt, but I'd tried to implement 3 mobile apps using Qt, and I always fall in some sort of limitation that annoys me.
> Like you said, pretty basic things like the video recording parameters.
>
> And I look into the next steps and I don't see any much effort on that area, this was the main reason I'd cancel my subscription.
>
> Mobile seems more like a second class citizen.
>   
>
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 at 18:02 Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
>
> 6 months of latency would be great.
> But the things I talk about are pretty basic on mobile:
> - Foreground/background lifecycle events,
> - Screen wake locks,
> - Notifications (local / remote)
>   
> These have been aound since before Qt targeted mobile and are sorely STILL missing from Qt.
>   
> Things upcoming that I wouldn't complain about having to implement myself:
> - Fingerprint scanning
> As this is relatively new for Android and iOS platforms. Though the Atrix (2010) had a fingerprint scanner, but only Android 6 had a platform API. iPhone had it as of the 5S.
>   
> It's like Qt is on mobile only if you want to put things on the screen and do AJAX. But if you really want to do anything really "mobile" you're on your own. We still can't control the video recording parameters on iOS (Thanks to my company, it will land in 5.6.2 -- was supposed to land in 5.6.1). Qt can only really be accurately described to be a Cross-platform UI on mobile. Outside of that, you're writing Java and Obj-C. So call it cross-platform for mobile is a stretch. I urging Qt to focus on eliminating the asterisks, so it's proper Mobile (capital M) platform.
>   
> With that said though, Qt's abstraction of various platform services is a godsend. The fact that ReactNative gives you access to AVFoundation doesn't do a whole lot when you have to write ReactNative that targets AVFoundation and more code to target android.media SDK and handle the intricacies of both in your own code base. So I think the Qt approach is right. I just want more of it. :-)
>   
>   
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 at 9:26 AM
> From: "Xavier Bigand" <flamaros.xavier at gmail.com[flamaros.xavier at gmail.com]>
> To: "Robert Iakobashvili" <coroberti at gmail.com[coroberti at gmail.com]>
> Cc: interest <interest at qt-project.org[interest at qt-project.org]>
>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] 5.8 Features?
>
> Like you said I think that the iOS and Android progress too fast and on an other cadence than Qt.
> We should not forget that Qt has to create a unified cross platform API, that is necessary harder than creating a new one for one platform.
>   
> I think that a latency of 6 months to a year is still reasonable for Qt depending on how it fall with releases.
>   
> In my opinion if you need something faster, you may have to consider to implement features your self. We started our application with 4.8 and necessitas and Qt was much slower than now to integrate new features provided by mobile devices. Some features like DPI retrieving wasn't correctly implemented so because it was a blocker for us, we fixed it by calling the native API on Android.
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 2016-06-24 15:00 GMT+02:00 Robert Iakobashvili <coroberti at gmail.com[http://coroberti@gmail.com]>:On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com[http://jhihn@gmx.com]> wrote:
>> I feel like the last few releases have been run by the trolls, and not the users of Qt. I was hoping open governance would enable the community to direct Qt development, but I seem to have misinterpreted what it means. I'm looking for what's going into 5.8.. not much listed on the releases page.
>>
>> I'd like to suggest that mobile get some much needed love.
>> - Application state transitions; Foreground, background
>> - Background processing API
>> - Screen wake lock API
>> - In-app Notifications: local, remote
>>
>> While I have those characterized as "mobile" there are things like notifications occurring on desktop platforms.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
> Agree with Jason that mobile support needs more love
> and adding "Native, native, native ..."
>
> However, it could be that progress made at iOS and Android side is too fast and
> our expectations from Qt are too high?
>
> As any cross-platform framework Qt has its limitations.
> Still, it has good integration points to allow additions of native code.
>
> jm4c to add.
>
> Kind regards,
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org[http://Interest@qt-project.org]
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>   --
>
> Xavier_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest at qt-project.org[Interest at qt-project.org] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest_______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org[Interest at qt-project.org]
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest at qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest[http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest]
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

-- 
Dr Sean Harmer | sean.harmer at kdab.com | Managing Director UK
KDAB (UK) Ltd, a KDAB Group company
Tel. +44 (0)1625 809908; Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
Mobile: +44 (0)7545 140604
KDAB - Qt Experts