> On 26 Jul 2015, at 5:16 pm, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi > > I am currently updating the cmake files to cover e.g. the editor and see > some problems. > > I know we decided to use Qt, but I would like to take the discussion again. > > If we use Qt the editor will never be a released product, it will remain an > optional product, and > I think we will want to position the editor as a main feature of corinthia. > > There is an alternative to Qt, which is a little more work but not much. If > we look at how peter > currently uses Qtwebkit it is pretty simple and static.
I should add that in terms of the amount of code, there will ultimately be significantly more on the native side (using Qt or whatever other library) than the JS code that runs inside the web view. The editor code is 13,600 lines of JavaScript. UX Write (excluding DocFormats and the JS Editor code) is 45,000. So we have two options: 1. Use Qt and write ~45,000 lines of code which works across platforms 2. Use native UI toolkits and write ~135,000 lines of code, to cover all three platform (Win/Linux/Mac) In practice, it wouldn’t be quite that bad, as some of that is non-UI code which could be written in plan C, albeit giving up some of the benefits of Qt e.g. string handling and common data structures. But it would be at least double the effort in both development and testing (unless we can find another suitable cross-platform UI toolkit). — Dr Peter M. Kelly pmke...@apache.org PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
