On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Thomas Hartmann
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>
>> it's a bit weird that you need a qmldir for that. Wouldn't it be better if
>> we could mark this as singleton in the implementation (ie. inside
>> single.qml)? Maybe use a new keyword for that? static is already a reserved
>> keyword in Ecmascript 5.1, so we could maybe write single.qml as:
>>
>> static QtObject {
>> property int myproperty;
>> ...
>> }
>
>
> But how would the engine know about single.qml being static? AFAIK all
> .qml parsing is done on demand. The engine would have to know that
> single.qml is a singleton from another source (Or scan all .qml files
> upfront for the static keyword).
>
> Another approach could be having something like a Singleton.qml in the
> plugin.
>
> Singleton.qml would be the general entry point to instantiate QML
> singletons for a plugin.
>
> Singleton.qml
>
> Singletons {
> MySingleton01 {
> id: mySingleton01
> }
>
> MySingleton02 {
> id: mySingleton02
> }
> QtObject {
> id: mySingleton03
> }
> ...
> }
>
> Everything defined in Singletons would be instantiated once in the root
> context.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Thomas Hartmann
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Would this be an option:
singleton MyQmlComponent {
....
}
Where you can only have one MyQmlComponent within the application. A
second MyQmlComponent instance would result in some fancy error.
Just brainstorming :)
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
