On 1/16/17, 10:14 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>of course, it may be that this task is too complex to get right, in >which case qt bindings for specific systems are a more plausible >approach. i think this is actually what we already do with activeqt. >but then the question forces itself why you had to create *yet another* >distributed object system instead of wrapping an existing one. yes, easy >type handling. see below. The crux of the matter, in my opinion, boils down to a couple of things. 1) Creating a wire-format that works with other languages is a much bigger undertaking, and one that would need to be integrated into Qt itself, not QtRO. Based on the (lack of) response from others, it seems this is not a palatable change at this time. 2) A Qt-to-Qt distributed object system can provide a rich set of features leveraging Qt’s existing capabilities, without requiring a lot of additional code by the user. Such a system doesn’t currently exist in Qt, would provide value, and thus the request to move QtRO out of the playground. *yet another* isn’t relevant unless you want to delve back into the wire- format side of this discussion (#1). For providing Qt new functionality, I feel the existing QtRO design is sound. If at some point #1 becomes a reality, I would be glad to revisit a generic idl. Regards, Brett _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
