I understand that QML/Quick is young, which justifies breaking backwards compatibility as it matures... but thinking longer-term, wouldn't it be better to call the newest QtQuick (2.0) just QtQuick and the 1.0 version Qt4Quick... to retain backwards compatibility? Does this promise of backwards compatibility only last for one major version number change? Isn't Qt 3 support being dropped with the release of Qt 5? Wouldn't that imply that support for Qt Quick 1.0 is going to be dropped for the Qt 6 release? I see no point in making a promise, going through all the extra effort of maintaining it... and then just dropping it later. We might as well drop support for Qt Quick 1.0 now and force the (albeit painful) upgrade process NOW rather than later (when they have EVEN MORE code written dependent on Quick 1.0).
As an aside, what's the difference between qml and quick? I thought they were the same thing. Why is QT += qml quick necessary? Seems like it should be one or the other. Sorry if this is noob'ish. Developers wishing to compile their Quick 1.0 code on Qt 5 should be forced to do QT += qt4quick or something, explicitly asking for backwards compatibility (assuming my paragraph above is ignored... which I'm guessing it will be...). New code should just be QT += quick... and hopefully Quick matures enough so that backwards compatibility isn't broken again. As for QQml vs Qml, Qml definitely reads better.. but QQml follows the rules. Rules can be broken and/or changed, however. With Qml becoming such a large part of the Qt experience (it seems to get way more attention than the C++ part lately), I'd say it's worth the exception. d3fault On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Artur Souza (MoRpHeUz) < artur.so...@openbossa.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Olivier Goffart <oliv...@woboq.com> > wrote: > > > > Anyway, this is a compatibility library. It's sole role is to be there > to help > > transition (just like qt3support was) > > I had the impression that most people agreed that qt3support was a > mistake. Are we going to take the same strategy for Qt5? :) > > Cheers! > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------- > Artur Duque de Souza > openBossa > INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia > ------------------------------------------------------- > Blog: http://blog.morpheuz.cc > PGP: 0xDBEEAAC3 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > ------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development