On Tuesday, 9 December 2025 04:47:22 Pacific Standard Time Juha Vuolle wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > I believe there may have been some softness in terminology, I'll try to > clarify. I'll reply from a Java/Kotlin point of view because the details > vary per bridged language.
I'd like an answer from Python that included PySide.
> Yes, conceptually this replaces the traditional C++ backend of a Quick
> application.
> But bridge is not a traditional 'binding API' where we 'expose Qt to
> Java'. But rather it's that we 'expose Java to QML'.
Got it. So in the Python world, it would allow writing a non-PySide
application logic that interacted with QML. Whether it reuses something from
PySide (like Shiboken) is an implementation detail. Is that it?
> Trivial example (subject to changes):
>
> MyType.java:
> @Registrable
> MyType {
> public void doStuff() { /**/ }
> }
>
> Main.qml:
> import MyQtBridge
>
> MyType { id: mt }
> Button { onClicked: mt.doStuff(); }
Since there's no Qt C++ here, is the name accurate? Should this talk about QML
instead? Or maybe insert "Quick" in the name?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Principal Engineer - Intel DCG - Platform & Sys. Eng.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
