Am 11/12/2012 10:23, schrieb Knoll Lars:
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).
>
> Sure, but it won't matter until you reference Single somewhere. The singleton
> should not get loaded before that anyway. And once you have a reference to
> it, the QML engine will try to load the file and then figure out it's static.
> That would require some work in the engine, but I think it might be doable.
>
Ah. I thought the singletons would still be referenced by one global id.
If the singleton is accessed by an object definition then the question
is what exactly is allowed.
All properties would probably have to be read only for example, or we
would depend on the order of instantiation.
MySingleton {
id: myLocalAccessId
}
MyItem {
localProperty: myLocalAcessId.property
}
Not sure if just using an id would not be simpler:
MyItem {
localProperty: mySingleton.property
}
Kind Regards,
Thomas Hartmann
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
