Hi John, On 6/8/11 2:22 PM, "ext John Layt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi, > >I want to raise the topic of QtLocation in Qt5. Currently QtLocation is >part >of QtMobility but is equally useful on the desktop and is something of >interest to KDE. I'm wondering what the plans are with regards to >properly >supporting the desktop platforms in QtLocation? Yes, we're thinking about this. Alex should be able to give some more details about the state of it on desktop platforms. > >There's a few areas that I think need to be addressed: > >1) The QGeoCoordinates and QGeoAddress classes should be fundamental data >types in QtCore rather than in QtLocation, so they can be used as data >containers and in library api without needing an entire geolocation and >mapping framework at compile or run time. (I also have some suggested api >changes but that's for later). I'm not sure there's enough justification to put these into QtCore, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise ;-) > >2) QtLocation now has a GeoClue backend for MeeGo, but GeoClue runs on >any >Linux platform so the backend should be enabled for them all. Sounds like a rather simple task... :) > >3) Are there any plans for OSX and Windows backends using their native >api, or >a fallback implementation for versions without a native api? > >4) Are there any plans for an OpenStretMap plugin and if not would one be >accepted? The Ovi Maps plugin is unusable for many people due to the >terms of >use. There are a couple of external projects to provide an OSM plugin >but it >would be far better if a single implementation was shipped in QtLocation. > I >think plugins for other providers like Google or Yahoo belong more in a >Qt >Addon. I thought there was at least a proof of concept available somewhere, but I might be wrong. If not I guess it's something to contribute to Qt :) > >5) Parts of the QtLocation api QLandmark are designed around the >structure of >Ovi services and may not work so well with other service providers, are >there >any plans to make these more generic or standards compliant? > >Obviously all these things could be contributed by the community, either >directly or as Qt Addons, but as it's a module actively maintained by Qt >knowing what Nokia's plans are would be useful before making any effort. > >Which also raises the question of how strategic direction for Nokia >maintained >modules like QtLocation will be decided and communicated, especially when >Nokia's interests may not agree with the wider communities interests, but >I >guess that's a topic for QCS? It's simple: The more others involve themselves the more will the project take care of their needs. But we can discuss more at QCS :) Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
