On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Ziller Eike <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Adam Light <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On the flip side, our large Qt application runs on Mac and Windows and > we're intentionally using QSettings with INI format on both platforms for > consistency. Since the storage of settings is really an implementation > detail (users should hopefully never need to edit the settings files > themselves), it's easier for us if the settings are stored the same way on > all platforms. > > Qt Creator intentionally used ini format for “consistency” as well, but: > * Since the paths are different through the platforms (Windows XP vs > Windows vs Linux vs OS X), and have to be, there is not much consistency in > the end after all, and > * Uninstallation process involves manually removing settings and > application data, at least on OS X, and there are even uninstallation tools > out there which do it for you, if the application follows the platform > convention > > So there are IMO very good reasons why someone would want their > application to follow platform conventions for application settings. > Possibly with a way to opt-in or opt-out. > > Sure, I understand why a developer might want an application to be able to follow platform conventions. I'm just making the case that I think there are valid reasons to *not* follow platform conventions as well. Currently QSettings makes it relatively easy for the developer to decide. But if this new class is eventually going to replace QSettings, I feel that the option should remain for the developer to force the settings to be saved in a consistent way across platforms, not always using the platform convention. Otherwise it's a loss of functionality. Adam
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
