On 4 March 2013 20:41, Olivier Goffart <[email protected]> wrote: > What exactly do you want to use TBB for? > > Can we not just suggest users to use TBB directly? And just make sure Qt play > nice with it. > > Or do you want to make a wrapper library to qt-ify it? What exactly do you > want to qt-ify? Is it only the underscores and naming conventions or is there > more to do? > > Or do you think Qt could use TBB for implementing some of the algorithms > within the Qt library?
The idea was to bring high-level multithreading functionality (e.g. task scheduling, algorithms, thread-safe containers) into Qt, by putting a wrapper around a 3rd-party library instead of inventing it all ourselves. But yes, making Qt play nice with said library would involve even less work than wrapping it. I'd imagine that Qt-fication would involve not just naming conventions, but also signal/slot support, integrating their algorithms with Qt containers, and hiding modules that are redundant in Qt (e.g. their own mutexes). I don't have a strong vision for it myself. It was something that Thiago indicated interest in before (http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-November/007901.html), so while I was on the topic of revamping Qt's multithreading API, I included this in the list-of-things-to-explore. A different possibility we could look at is absorbing ThreadWeaver upstream, perhaps? Regards, Sze-Howe _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
