On 15 Feb 2014, at 20:38, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: > I have not read this thread through, but it is long for me now, but I > would like to note one suggestion from my side: > > Make 1-2 unstable releases or a new add-on module. Unfortunately, we > have not done that, and we are now stuck with a couple of bad API > issues for a few years. This could have been avoided with 1-2 unstable > releases because the user feedback began to come once it had been > released and out. QtWebSockets currently is an add-on module. > > Such a disclaimer could be done as part of Qt 5.3, etc. I think it is > unpleasant for the end users, but if the communication is clear > between the developer(s) and end users why it is so, I think this will > serve good. Not a bad idea at all. > > That being sad, I may be totally wrong, and websockets has already > received a lot of end-user feedback with thorough API usage than > QtSerialPort when it was first released as part of Qt. In that case, > feel free to ignore me. I am just trying to help.
Your help is definitely appreciated. QtWebSockets is a different beast than QtSerialPort I think. It is kind of a socket, and as such has been modelled after the well-established QAbstractSocket API. The server part is modelled after the well-established QTcpServer API. Besides that there are 2 RFCs: one describing the protocol itself and one describing the JavaScript API. So, we know what is to be expected from a web socket. Cheers, Kurt > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development