On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:28:43 ext Lincoln Ramsay wrote: > On 04/12/2012 11:00 AM, ext Alan Alpert wrote: > > One thing I don't understand in this discussion is this theme manager > > concept (like QStyle). > > ... > > > Why exactly do we need this level of indirection > > Because of this: > > import Widgets 1.0 > > As opposed to this: > > //import MeeGoWidgets 1.0 > //import SymbianWidgets 1.0 > import DesktopWidgets 1.0 > > > If there was a "standard API" defined for a "components" and each > platform provided something that was source-compatible with this API > then that would work too (without indirection) but I haven't seen anyone > suggesting that a platform's "components" should adhere to some > "standard API".
I suggest it :) . It's a de-facto standard already if you can simply comment in the appropriate import. > People are coming at this from a "one source, multiple targets" > viewpoint, which clashes with QML's "one source, one target" design. I > suspect that people do not want to maintain otherwise > virtually-identical .qml files for each target platform just because the > components have a different import, or a different name for an element. This doesn't require a theme manager abstraction. It could be handled with a Widgets import that resolves to MeeGoWidget,SymbianWidgets or DesktopWidgets based on runtime platform. (this approach does also require the 'standard API' you mention, but that's still not a theme manager - it requires quite different actions to make it a reality) -- Alan Alpert Senior Engineer Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
