[PySide] PySide - Qt5 - Swig

[Fabien Castan]

>
>
>  I personally like the idea of using SWIG to build Qt bindings. SWIG is
>>> the only tool I have ever used to interface C++ and Python, and it seemed
>>> fine. All of the alternatives to SWIG seemed worse.
>>> For those who don't know, PyQt uses SIP. SIP is similar to SWIG in many
>>> ways.
>>
>> Compared to PyQt, our binding creates bigger binaries, but it may be
>> better with hand written rules... And we could discuss with SWIG guys on
>> that point.
>>
>
> "may be better" is a bad argument. Historically PySide used Boost, it
> generated a lot of garbage too, and that's why Shiboken was born (correct
> me if I wrong). The only problem with Shiboken maintainability is that it
> is written in C++ and most PySide users with primarily Python background.
> SWIG doesn't tackle this core flaw at all and may become an additional
> hurdle that will bury the project even more.
>
> The good solution (tm) is not to rewrite Shiboken from scratch, but find a
> way to gradually move the logic out of it into Python.
>

I don't want to hurt anybody. I just want to find a way to see a Qt5
binding soon. If it's with Shiboken it's fine to me... but I can't help on
that.
I'm personally not interested to create yet another binding tool. I just
want Qt5 available in python.

Swig has become one of the most popular binding tool. It's really
accessible for all people to create rules. This could help to extend the
community around PySide. For example, I could help and some people around
me too.
IMHO, it's always the same problem in the open source world... the
difficulty for communities to work together. There is always a lot of open
source software to do same thing, but rarely a good one inside this
profusion.

Are people from Shiboken not interested to work on Swig? Why?
I see the reason to eliminate boost python. Is there a reason to eliminate
Swig?


> Anyway SIP is GPL or commercial... so this is not an option.
>>
>
> SWIG is GPL too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIG
>

Yes the SWIG core but...
"The intention of the SWIG license is to ensure the SWIG source code (the
code that is compiled into the SWIG executable) remains as free software by
using the GPL license <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html> on the SWIG
source code. SWIG also generates code and the intention of the SWIG license
is also to enable distribution of the generated code under license terms of
the user's choice/requirements. Users are responsible for ensuring that
they meet any license requirements for all code fed into SWIG that is
subsequently used in the generated output. *Note that portions of the SWIG
library are used in the generated code and this library code distributed
with SWIG is licensed under a very permissive license that allows further
distribution without any obligations.*"

it would be pity to throw away all the hard work of developers on shiboken.
>

No, it could be a great opportunity to bring this expertise to SWIG! And
make the world wonderful. ;)
But I understand the history of SWIG with binaries sizes. I don't have the
project with me, but I will check that and send you that information in
detail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/pyside/attachments/20130113/41adb1b4/attachment.html>