There is no reason for GTK to go away, and I don't see that happening. I also don't see any reason not to move to GTK 3 when that happens. There are just way too many useful applications to not support that in MeeGo in the future.
That being said, QT is being pushed essentially for /new/ application development. The way I look at it - if you're interested in writing new applications, use QT. But that doesn't mean that your GTK application will stop working. The bottom line is that it makes little-to-no sense to port from GTK to QT "just because." It's just a waste of time - time that could be spent innovating in other/new areas (and do it using QT if you please). A more important goal is ensuring that applications integrate well into MeeGo - the toolkit is an implementation detail. --Aaron On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM, JD Zheng <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Paul Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 11:01 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> > On 5/27/2010 10:37, JD Zheng wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > We were told Qt will be the primary UI toolkit (and App framework) for >> > > MeeGo from the day we heard MeeGo, but seems people, esp. developer >> > > who >> > > is doing *real* UX development, have different ideas about it (see >> > > original thread). >> > >> > All applications/etc will use Qt. Even the MeeGo ones. We have some >> > legacy apps >> > that don't use Qt, but those are on a path to be converted to use Qt or >> > be replaced. >> > (and there may be 3rd party legacy apps that will keep using what they >> > do; Chromium >> > could be an example of that) >> >> Let's be clear here - much of what is in MeeGo Netbook is taken from >> upstream projects, and while we contribute as much as we can we're not >> in a position to dictate that things are rewritten in QT. Replacing, >> based purely on toolkit, existing applications that have been tailored >> to the netbook user experience either by us (Intel) or partners (Novell, >> Collabora) would seem an excessive waste of time and energy and pretty >> disrespectful of our partners excellent and substantial contributions >> not to mention the efforts of numerous dedicated and hardworking >> colleagues. >> >> However if people are looking to contribute apps then I would say there >> is plenty of green field, and only your imagination and the SDK to hold >> you back. Just open the MeeGo Garage client (written in QT btw) and see >> there all the gaps and potential for new and exciting apps tailored to >> the Netbook formfactor. http://meego.com/developers/getting-started has >> all you need to get going. I look forward to seeing what amazing things >> people can come up with. >> >> Paul >> >> > The Window Manager (and it's very close friends) are not "Applications" >> > in this sense, >> > and may use technology that is appropriate for their problem domain, >> > which may or may >> > not include Qt. >> > >> > >> > > Also if we were going to do Qt for some UX and, for example, GTK for >> > > others, do we still think we would have a unified platform? Shall we >> > > focus on one framework after 1.0 was out? >> > >> > GTK is only available to run legacy applications, and should not be used >> > for any new development for MeeGo. >> > (This "for legacy only" also means that for example we're unlikely to go >> > to gtk 3.0 >> > when it comes out, but rather we stay at the 2.x version train) >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > MeeGo-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev >> >> -- >> Intel Open Source Technology Centre >> http://oss.intel.com/ >> > I was looking for the answer to "to Qt or not to Qt" for all MeeGo UX and > seems I am unable to get consistent answer. > I was calling for community involvement for non-Qt app porting, seems it is > just "wasting time", which implies the current GTK app will stay there as > MeeGo core app and it basically says NO to my original question. > Why wasn't moving to rpm "wasting time"? We followed the decision even if we > disagreed, why decision can easily be reverted now for other reasons? Or > maybe we shouldn't discuss decision in the first place? > Sounds like the things left to any outsider is some applications to be done > if no one is coding for that (well, I have no idea what is being > developing). > What does MeeGo really expect from community? (unfortunately so many emails > distinguished "We(MeeGo?)" and community and I follow that). I was expecting > the answer after 1.0 release and now it is the right time to ask. > Thanks. > JD Zheng > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev > > _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
