[PySide] PySide evaluation

[Aaron Richiger]

Please all fill in the following evaluation about PySide usage/development.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHVNa1d3dVpvdFdJV1U3THBxVVk2Tnc6MQ

I ask both PySide users and developers to answer the questions, it will take you only a few minutes and helps us to get a better image about the following:

- What are your needs regarding the future PySide project
- What are your possibilities to help us improving PySide

You will immediately see an overview of the results as soon as you finished the survey and in a few days, I will inform the list about the results.

Thanks a lot for your help!
Aaron




> I'm glad about the amount of traffic on the mailing list. Such
> discussions are either the end of a project or the beginning of a new
> process. Let's hope it's the first step towards the next PySide
> generation. The times of describing a problem and waiting for the
> solution of the development team are definitely over, so if we want this
> project to continue, we have to help ourselves. I think, before deciding
> implementation details, we have to stand one step back and answer the
> following questions one after the other:
>
> - What are our goals for PySide?
> - Which development team would be available?
> - How much money is needed/available?
>
> With this information, we can decide which of the defined goals are
> realistic to implement...
> To get, document and archive this information, I created a little
> survey. Please do not answer the questions now already, because I would
> like to get the feedback of some of you about missing/superfuous questions.
>
> Could some of you visit the following link and just click "Continue"
> until the end, read everything, but not submit or answer anything and
> give me some feedback:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHVNa1d3dVpvdFdJV1U3THBxVVk2Tnc6MQ
>
> Thanks. Then we can start the official survey tomorrow or so.
>
> Cheers
> Aaron
>
>
>
> Am 14.01.2013 19:16, schrieb John Ehresman:
>> On 1/14/13 12:18 PM, Fabien Castan wrote:
>>>       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 don't think the binding tool as needing a lot of effort.  We do need
>> more people fixing bugs and improving the binding rules, but that is the
>> case with either tool.  If we were starting from scratch, I'd think swig
>> would be something to look at, but we aren't starting from scratch.
>>
>>>       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.
>> You are correct that users need to either use one binding tool for all
>> qt related interfaces or do extra work to use something else.  This
>> would be true with swig or shiboken or anything else.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>> _______________________________________________
>> PySide mailing list
>> PySide at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
> _______________________________________________
> PySide mailing list
> PySide at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside