On Friday 10 October 2014 06:47:39 Ziller Eike wrote: > I think it would not be good to create a new API for settings, and > simultaneously force us to keep the old API because the new API doesn’t > cover the old use cases. So, if Windows registry access should not be done > through the new settings API (which I can’t tell), we should have a > dedicated API for it at the same time the new settings API is introduced.
Ossi was talking about moving the qtbase/tools/shared/windows/registry* class into QtCore. That would be the replacement. > > Mac people: do we need access to plist files? > > Plist is the format for application and other settings on OS X, and there > are native tools for nicely editing these. Ini is highly alien on OS X. So, > I’d answer yes. So you're saying that QConfig should read from and save to Plist files on Mac, instead of .ini files. Is that it? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
