Hi Artur, I agree having a function for binding an expression to the implicit size properties is not ideal. But if making them writable is not an option, and no one can suggest a better alternative, then something like that I think would be an acceptable compromise, over having to use an ImplicitSizeItem that makes those properties writable anyway.
Think about it; what's the point of making the implicitWidth and implicitHeight read-only on Item, if all of our QtComponents elements that need an implicit size makes them writable anyway? That said, I agree with Marin that they shouldn't be writable (because they're not a way to influence what the Item does). So having a function (for example) to bind an expression to them with a big label on it explaining that it does and what it's for, would be better than the alternative, I think. Martin, would making them writable on Item but read-only on all the core elements you provide be a better compromise? Probably not... Cheers Mathias __________________ From: ext Artur Souza (MoRpHeUz) [artur.so...@openbossa.org] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:20 PM To: Malmqvist Mathias (Nokia-MS/London) Cc: qt-components@qt.nokia.com; Jones Martin (Nokia-MS-Qt/Brisbane) Subject: Re: [Qt-components] (QTBUG-14957) Only core QML elements can have implicit size Hi Mathias! On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM, <mathias.malmqv...@nokia.com> wrote: > J-P and Marco (and anyone else who cares about implicit sizing of Items), > what do you think about Marin's suggested fix for QTBUG-14957? > > Basically Martin wants to support implicitWidth and implicitHeight properties > on Item, but they would be read-only so we would still need to have an > ImplicitSizeItem base element for our components that really only overrides > the read-only Item properties and make them writable. > > I can see why Martin doesn't want to make these properties writable (because > they shouldn't be), but if we still need our own ImplicitSizeItem and all it > does > is make these properties writable, then it doesn't really improve much on what > we already have. > > What do you think? > Could we have implicitWidth and implicitHeight properties read-only but also > e.g. a function on Item for binding an expression to them? Would that be a > balanced compromise? These days I had a chat with some co-workers saying that as the time go I fell more and more that we'll need *some kind* of size hint (it doesn't necessary need to be exactly the one that we have on QWidget/QGraphicsWidget). So I really support the idea of solving this once for all in QML itself. Making the properties read-only doesn't improve much our use case as we still would need our ImplicitSizeItem as you said. Enabling the use of a function for binding an expression to them sounds like a little bit "hackish" from my "API point of view". It should either support writing on it or not at all, otherwise it just makes the API uglier and hard to understand when looking from outside. Cheers, -- ------------------------------------------------------- Artur Duque de Souza openBossa INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia ------------------------------------------------------- Blog: http://blog.morpheuz.cc PGP: 0xDBEEAAC3 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Qt-components mailing list Qt-components@qt.nokia.com http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-components
