On segunda-feira, 20 de junho de 2016 22:57:38 PDT André Pönitz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:59:32AM +0200, Kevin Funk wrote: > > On Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2016 00:19:10 CEST Kevin Funk wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > > > Question: Is there an interest in having QtSingleApplication in Qt > > > proper? Say qtbase? We'd love to do the work if there's a chance for > > > it being accepted. > > > > Heya, > > > > Thanks for all the comments, I'll work on introducing > > QtSingleApplication into QtCore, including porting it to QLockFile, > > including porting it away from the QCoreApplication base. > > You mean port away from QApplication? > > Anyway, I don't quite get it: > > - QtSingleApplication is as easily accessible as other "bread and > butter" parts of Qt via git, hosted by the same entity, > > - no other parts of Qt depend on QtSingleApplication nor would > see any kind of UX/Performance/whatever boost if they did, > > - we jump through major hoops and put major effort to have something > resembling a modular system with independent repos, > > - every now and than we have the feeling that Qt Core / Qt Base > grows too much fat/looks like a dumping ground of nice-to-have > feeatures/whatever and we are not happy > > and still we move stuff *needlessly* to Qt Core?
I'd like to see KUniqueApplication deprecated, as it relies on some undocumented and fragile QtDBus functionality (namely, connecting to the bus before QCoreApplication is created). -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development