On 10. Dec 2025, at 14:08, André Somers via Development <[email protected]> wrote:
So... QtBridges that don't expose qt, but only allow you to make something talking to QML. to Qt Quick via QML from my perspective and IMHO. Does that mean your message is now that Qt is just QML, and the rest of it doesn't really matter? Not at all! Our message should be understood as: Qt is not only C++, QML and Python (via bindngs like PySide). It is not only that, it is more. Long term, we would like to even find ways how bring languages and C++ being even at the same time. So that Qt will be seen more and more as a language-indepedent framework. Some day, we also want to find ways how to involve folks from https://wiki.qt.io/Language_Bindings so that over time, it becomes a wider effort and exploration Just checking if I understood the message correctly, of course. I’m glad you do. And I miss more voices from outside of The Group :-) — Vladimir On 10-12-2025 12:26, Volker Hilsheimer via Development wrote: On 10 Dec 2025, at 01:13, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: 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? On a product/marketing/communications level, I think we would do ourselves a disservice by getting lost in technicalities. The story we want to tell is that we are making Qt available to Python/C#/Java/Swift/Rust developers. We won’t reach those developers if we throw module and technology names at them that they won’t understand if they know nothing about Qt. That’s for the product, and for the terminology we have been using in public communication. In principle, and if it helps avoid confusion with other repositories, we could use more specific terminology in the repositories and artefacts. But assuming that “Qt Bridges” will become established vocabulary, both within the contributor community and for the users we are targeting, a repository naming convention “qt/qtbridges-<language>” as requested makes sense to me. Volker -- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
-- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
