On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jeremy Lainé <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 04/13/2015 03:46 PM, Nurmi J-P wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2015, at 14:50, Jeremy Lainé <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> How about just "android-controls", which would become > >> "qt-android-controls" if the project graduates from playground? > > I like this suggestion. In the end we will have much more (*) than just UI controls, though. Does that matter from the naming perspective? > > > > *) For example, good background service integration is important for my own use cases. Pretty much the same way WorkerScript works, I hope to be able to send arbitrary jsobjects between background services and UI instances. > > Another option is "quick-android", which would become "qt-quick-android". > > Cheers, > Jeremy
+1 I would love to try this so any name is good for me. I was just starting to develop something for android (in java) just because qtquickcontrols doesn't feel right. This however is really encouraging. Do/will the standard Qt models work with the native views?
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
