[Qt5-feedback] Qt5 & QtLocation

[lars.knoll at nokia.com]

Hi John,

On 6/8/11 2:22 PM, "ext John Layt" <johnlayt at googlemail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I want to raise the topic of QtLocation in Qt5.  Currently QtLocation is
>part 
>of QtMobility but is equally useful on the desktop and is something of
>interest to KDE.  I'm wondering what the plans are with regards to
>properly 
>supporting the desktop platforms in QtLocation?

Yes, we're thinking about this. Alex should be able to give some more
details about the state of it on desktop platforms.
>
>There's a few areas that I think need to be addressed:
>
>1) The QGeoCoordinates and QGeoAddress classes should be fundamental data
>types in QtCore rather than in QtLocation, so they can be used as data
>containers and in library api without needing an entire geolocation and
>mapping framework at compile or run time. (I also have some suggested api
>changes but that's for later).

I'm not sure there's enough justification to put these into QtCore, but
I'm happy to be convinced otherwise ;-)

>
>2) QtLocation now has a GeoClue backend for MeeGo, but GeoClue runs on
>any 
>Linux platform so the backend should be enabled for them all.

Sounds like a rather simple task... :)
>
>3) Are there any plans for OSX and Windows backends using their native
>api, or 
>a fallback implementation for versions without a native api?
>
>4) Are there any plans for an OpenStretMap plugin and if not would one be
>accepted?  The Ovi Maps plugin is unusable for many people due to the
>terms of 
>use.  There are a couple of external projects to provide an OSM plugin
>but it 
>would be far better if a single implementation was shipped in QtLocation.
> I 
>think plugins for other providers like Google or Yahoo belong more in a
>Qt 
>Addon.

I thought there was at least a proof of concept available somewhere, but I
might be wrong. If not I guess it's something to contribute to Qt :)
>
>5) Parts of the QtLocation api QLandmark are designed around the
>structure of 
>Ovi services and may not work so well with other service providers, are
>there 
>any plans to make these more generic or standards compliant?
>
>Obviously all these things could be contributed by the community, either
>directly or as Qt Addons, but as it's a module actively maintained by Qt
>knowing what Nokia's plans are would be useful before making any effort.
>
>Which also raises the question of how strategic direction for Nokia
>maintained 
>modules like QtLocation will be decided and communicated, especially when
>Nokia's interests may not agree with the wider communities interests, but
>I 
>guess that's a topic for QCS?

It's simple: The more others involve themselves the more will the project
take care of their needs. But we can discuss more at QCS :)

Cheers,
Lars