[Qt-interest] Qt5 and XML DOM

[Linos]

El 14/05/11 16:46, Arnold Krille escribió:
> On Saturday 14 May 2011 15:32:41 Till Oliver Knoll wrote:
>> Am 11.05.2011 um 18:42 schrieb Konrad Rosenbaum<konrad at silmor.de>:
>>> Would the summit in Berlin be a good place to chime in for us die-hard
>>> lovers of old and un-sexy features like widgets and DOM?
>>
>> Yes, that was exactly my keyword: "un-sexy features - and QWidgets"!
>>
>> I must insist(TM) ;) that the "old-fashioned" but very proven and
>> widely-accepted widget approach is neglected in favour of "klicki-bunti"
>> (german expression ;) user interfaces "which look everywhere the same"!
>>
>> Don't get me wrong: I am talking "desktop applications" (and I intenionally
>> say "applications" and not "apps"), and I /do/ see a use of QML even on
>> the desktop: for "fixed size toy apps or games".
>>
>> But other than that I want my Qt application to look, feel and behave as
>> closely as possible according to the underlying OS.
>>
>> Now I do see and respect the argument of "declarative UI design". But
>> what's wrong with the "interactive design" with the excellent Qt
>> Designer"? Yes, there seems to be an attemp to "support QML in Qt
>> Designer", but that looks like re-inventing the wheel for something we
>> already have.
>>
>> Now I totally agree that when it comes to "animating the UI" it is indeed
>> easier to do that with declarative design. But my point is: as a user I
>> don't want that! As a developer I don't need that!
>>
>> Concrete example: I am evaluating Lightroom 3.4 (an application to manage
>> and index huge collections of photos) on Mac. Yes, I must agree I was a
>> bit impressed in the beginning about the "sexyness" of their dark-stylish
>> UI. And they do have fading and moving elements - cool.
>>
>> Yes, it doesn't quite look like a "Mac application" (but then again: even
>> Apple does visual experiments lately), but the dark-coloured UI makes
>> sense for an application where the colours of the photos count mainly.
>>
>> That said, the next thing I noticed was that the presets for photo
>> development were a huge linear list, instead of some (freely configurable)
>> tree structure or the like. Then my shared network folder of my other Mac
>> was not recognised as such (LR has its "own filesystem view", as it seems,
>> which does neither seem to support NFS mounted drives nor "Apple Shared
>> Folders").
>>
>> Bottom messages: the eye candy was eaten after 10 minutes! Then I thought
>> "Had they invested more on usability the application would be even
>> better!" (It's still a great tool, don't get me wrong ;)
>>
>> And if the application had been written in Qt everything would have been
>> possible with QWidgets and a bit of CSS for the dark background colours.
>> Animating the tabs with "QAnimation" classes would be relatively easy
>> (when compared what the application is supposed to do). And on feature
>> request lists I read "face recognition, HDR, separate control curves per
>> colour channel... but I have never read "Please animate the UI more and
>> make it more sexy!" In fact, I have never read such a request for /any/
>> application, from /any/ user!
>>
>> The only persons that I came across or read about mentioning "sexy UIs" was
>> some former boss ("I've heard Flash/AIR apps are very sexy - can't we port
>> our Java client app to that?").
>>
>>
>> So here's a suggestion: improve the QGesture support in QGraphicsView (I've
>> been told the current architecture doesn't really support the needed event
>> handling well, on Mac for example). Improve OpenGL 3 support ("core GL
>> context" with no deprecated GL functions. Add proper SOAP support. There
>> are more examples which would bring a real use to applications.
>>
>>
>> Qt NEEDS to be UN-SEXY! It needs to provide the BASIC building blocks and a
>> fast and reliable abstraction for common OS functionality. Please KEEP it
>> like this - let us Qt users write the sexy parts ;)
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the lenghty post here - just trying to fight the "we need every 3
>> years a new technology (which does the same as the previous one, just
>> under a different name), so we keep starting over and over again, just
>> slower and with the same bugs we already had fixed in the previous
>> technology"-thinking ;)
>
> You would get a "Like" from me if this post and me where on that popular
> public face directory.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Arnold
>

And from me, QtSql need some love too.

Regards,
Miguel Angel.