maybe it is worth of breaking the source compatibility after all? what if we'd split the QSettings (as it is right now) into two independent classes? let's say QSystemSettings, which would use the "native" storage, like registry on Windows, GConf on GNOME, ContextKit on MeeGo, DefaultsSystem on Mac, etc., and QSettings - which would provide only the basics (INI format support?) but would be so flexible so that the user could implement (almost) any storage format support for it via the backends (I'm actually thinking about the XML and, sql[ite] format backends). I don't really care about those who uses QSettings just to access the windows'es registry - so I didn't change the class name (it's already perfect, imo) but if someone does, then we probably may want to add (an obsoleted by-design?) QSystemSettings backend for QSettings in order to make the transition period less stressful for the user.
kind regards, Konstantin (Ritt) 2011/8/23 <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > Mobility's P&S module (now part of the QtSystems module) provides a similar > functionality. And I'm currently doing some refactorings so simplify its > internals. > As of now, it uses registry on Windows, GConf on desktop Linux, ContextKit on > MeeGo. > > ================ > Xizhi Zhu (Steven) > > Software Engineer @ Qt > Nokia > > Mobile: +358 (0)50 4801247 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > ext Robin Burchell > Sent: 23. elokuuta 2011 16:35 > To: Thiago Macieira > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Qt5-feedback] QSettings moved away > > (Resending from the correct address, sorry Thiago :)) > > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd like to propose that we mark QSettings as Done and move it to a >> separate module, once the task I proposed in "System and global >> settings and platform plugins" is complete. > > > No complaints from me. It's a mess. > >> Once we have a replacement class for it, whcih is easier to use and >> more performant (for example, implemented on top of dconf on Unix), I >> propose we deprecate it. > > Also sounds OK, though I wonder a little what we'd call this new class > - naming is hard, doubly so when you've taken the generic name already > ;) > > Also, I think it should be made explicitly clear that the new settings > mechanism (whatever it is) should support notification of property changes. > That's always been one of the most irritating QSettings lacks, for me. > > BR, > > Robin > _______________________________________________ > Qt5-feedback mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback > _______________________________________________ > Qt5-feedback mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback > _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
