[PySide] PySide - Qt5 - Swig

[Fabien Castan]

> I know a lot has been written on this thread, but I'd like to go back to
> the start since I may have been part of the source of the impression
> that it was important to rewrite shiboken.  What I said or meant to say
> is that it would be nice to move parts of the code generator to Python
> to make it easier to work with, but I did not mean to imply that it's
> impossible to work with as it is.  I have gone into the C++ code and
> made changes and it's not that different from other code generators I
> have worked with.
>
Ok, I could understand that.

I'm not enthusiastic about a rewrite using swig; it seems to be a lot of
> work for questionable benefits.

The main benefit could be to get a bigger community and concentrate efforts
on the binding rules, instead of working on a binding tool.

I think much of the work with PySide is
> writing a Python binding given the specifics of how Qt works so it's
> less about using a semi-generic tool such as swiq or shiboken and more
> about how Qt object lifetime works.
>
Yes, but users also need to bind their own widgets... And your widgets use
your core objects... so you need to use the same binding tool everywhere.
A generic binding tool could help for that.

I have not looked at Qt5 because the application I work on is likely to
> use Qt4 for the foreseeable future.  Does anyone on this list know what
> has changed and how much work the bindings are likely to need?
>
* changed how the project is splitted
* a rewrite of signal/slot with objects... which should be easier to bind
* function signatures...
* QDeclarative classes have been renamed
* ...
http://www.kdab.com/porting-from-qt-4-to-qt-5

PySide does need to transition into more of a community maintained
> project because the small group of developers who wrote it initially
> have gone on to other things (I think; my apologies if I'm wrong here).

 We do need developers who are comfortable working with C++ just because
> Qt is a C++ library, but we also need a more useful bug tracking system
> and better documentation.  My approach to helping out has been to do
> what I can to figure out how things work, to run code in a C++ debugger
> to find and fix bugs, and to contribute changes back.  I think the more
> developers who can help out, the better.
>
Yes, that's exactly my point. How to get a bigger community?

About binaries sizes:
In Release:
QtCore.pyd
- shiboken: 2 200 Ko
- sip: 2 103 Ko
- swig: 6 118 Ko
QtGui.pyd
- shiboken: 8 468 Ko
- sip: 7 500 Ko
- swig: 25 428 Ko

In Debug:
QtCore_d.pyd
- shiboken: 5 927 Ko
- swig: 10 325 Ko
QtGui_d.pyd
- shiboken: 26 825 Ko
- swig: 44 148 Ko

For people who see this email without context, these pyd use different
rules... so it cannot be seen as a global evaluation of each binding tool.

I just asked to swig guys:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CAJQWia4HAj8v_DSgT4PCHxz%2BzKUExGGDH%3DxF1kcKK9bv1980%3DA%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=swig-devel

Regards,
Fabien
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/pyside/attachments/20130114/cd978304/attachment.html>