[Qt-interest] Qt-interest Digest, Vol 15, Issue 148

[Ross Driedger]

On 16-Feb-10, at 4:07 PM, qt-interest-request at trolltech.com wrote:

>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:06:47 +0100
> From: Thiago Macieira <thiago at kde.org>
> Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] How to: parse an xml file with tags
> To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
> Message-ID: <201002162206.58070.thiago at kde.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
>
> Em Ter?a-feira 16. Fevereiro 2010, ?s 21.31.30, Ross Driedger  
> escreveu:
>> There are some very compelling reasons to continue supporting DOM:
>> 1) It is a W3C standard model.  To discontinue support for is this is
>> highly presumptuous.
>
> Which is a very good reason not to have it in Qt. DOM is a full API  
> and it
> doesn't match Qt's principles or style.
>
> Maybe we should remove the Qt convenience functions we added to QDom?

So is it part of the Qt philosophy to ignore established standards and  
invent something new that is incompatible with anything else?  Sounds  
more like Microsoft's way of doing things.

>
>> 2) There is a substantial code base that uses it.  I have invested a
>> good deal of time converting my code from xerces to Qt and them
>> extending it.  Can I invoice Nokia for the time and effort it will
>> take to convert my code into some other proprietary XML model?  I
>> didn't think so.
>
> There was a great deal of code invested in Qt 3 before Qt 4 came.

Understanding that going from 3 to 4 represents an improvement.  Users  
have the choice of porting or staying, each with attendant  
disadvantages: a learning curve or not benefitting from  
improvements.   I can recall the yelps of protest over this and it is  
something that comes with the territory of making such a drastic  
change in versions.

Frankly, I do not see the advantage in ignoring a well established and  
independent standard.

>
>> The more I think about this the angrier I get, considering that DOM
>> support is one reason I chose Qt as my framework and that changing  
>> the
>> implementation to suit something else will likely represent many
>> month's work.
>>
>> ...and I don't think Nokia will pay my invoice to convert my code...
>
> What part of "Qt 5 is still many years away, it shouldn't be a  
> problem now"
> was lost on you?


I don't know about you, but I intend my software to out-live Qt v4, v5  
and v6 (at the very least).

I'm not ready to chuck the framework for this, but be aware you have a  
commercial license holder who is not happy about this decision.

Ross Driedger
ross_at_earz.ca



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-interest-old/attachments/20100216/840369fa/attachment.html