Le vendredi 16 janvier 2009 22:47:19 Thorsten Behrens, vous avez écrit : > Hi Eric, > > why are you following up to my (unrelated) lib unloading mail?!
Bad habits of mine, sorry. > (...) > So that's nothing we should do on a whim - quite the contrary, Of course. > we should never ever again bind ourselves against the implementation of > one specific toolkit, but rather code against an abstract interface. > (...) > Of course, having qt then provide _one_ implementation of that > toolkit interface is quite the plan (as having a gtk, Win32 & Cocoa > one). And the license change definitely helps there. Recoding for qt, gtk, win32, and Cocoa is a serious duplication of efforts. If the purpose for having an abstract layer and porting on so many APIs is PORTABILITY to many operating systems, then this duplication of efforts becomes useless, because Qt is already very portable. If the reason for this effort is strategic INDEPENDANCY towards one library provider, then yes it makes a lot of sense to have abstraction layers in the middle. It would be a good thing to clarify the reasons behind the current choices. -- Writing about music is like dancing about architecture -- Elvis Costello --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
