Re: [Interest] QTemporaryFile::open(OpenMode flags) is protected, but not in documentation
Hi Thiago, Then I don't see the point of QTemporaryFile... You write some data and can't do anything with it? What are the legacy uses of it? - Open the file with a QFile for reading. Such use would be a large buffer we do not want to keep in memory. But according to what you said, it must be done before the QTemporaryFile was closed. Then, what guarantees the writes have been flushed? - Write data to a temporary file before renaming it to the final name. This is useful when a user saves a document overwriting the old version, in case the system or app crashes he does not loose all the work. But QFile::rename() closes before renaming, which means according to what you said the data is not guaranteed to be still there. I definitely need some additionnal explanation to the documentation on how to use this class Etienne 2013/9/26 Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com Once you close the file, your data is gone. Your data only exists as long as you keep the file open. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
[Interest] LGPL license info.
Dear All, I have plans to use proprietary application under LGPL v2.1 license. May i know whether the modules, QtSerialPort and QtConnectivity come under LGPL v2.1 ? Thanks, Ramesh. DISCLAIMER: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient/s and may contain material that is CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance by others or copying or distribution or forwarding of any or all of the contents in this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email and delete all copies; your cooperation in this regard is appreciated. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] LGPL license info.
Hi Ramesh, In short they are available under LGPL. I think http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.0/qtdoc/licensing.html might help to answer further question. Also just about every file has a header stating its license. FYI there are quite a few more licenses employed by various parts of Qt. -- Alex From: interest-bounces+alexander.blasche=digia@qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+alexander.blasche=digia@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Ramesh Nelakuditi Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2013 11:20 To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: [Interest] LGPL license info. Dear All, I have plans to use proprietary application under LGPL v2.1 license. May i know whether the modules, QtSerialPort and QtConnectivity come under LGPL v2.1 ? Thanks, Ramesh. DISCLAIMER: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient/s and may contain material that is CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance by others or copying or distribution or forwarding of any or all of the contents in this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email and delete all copies; your cooperation in this regard is appreciated. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] QTemporaryFile::open(OpenMode flags) is protected, but not in documentation
It's used exactly for that purpose -- storing large amounts of temporary data which doesn't need super-low access times (so there's no need to waste RAM). You can do whatever you like with that data, just don't close the file. And, to be honest, I don't see any [good] reason to close a temporary file (regardless of the implementation) if you're going to access it again, particularly for the reason mentioned by Thiago -- closing a file means losing any control over its contents, there are absolutely no guarantees that the next time you open the same file (when actually that'll be a file with the same path), you'll see the same data you wrote to it earlier. On Sep 26, 2013 12:57 PM, Etienne Sandré-Chardonnal etienne.san...@m4x.org wrote: Hi Thiago, Then I don't see the point of QTemporaryFile... You write some data and can't do anything with it? What are the legacy uses of it? - Open the file with a QFile for reading. Such use would be a large buffer we do not want to keep in memory. But according to what you said, it must be done before the QTemporaryFile was closed. Then, what guarantees the writes have been flushed? - Write data to a temporary file before renaming it to the final name. This is useful when a user saves a document overwriting the old version, in case the system or app crashes he does not loose all the work. But QFile::rename() closes before renaming, which means according to what you said the data is not guaranteed to be still there. I definitely need some additionnal explanation to the documentation on how to use this class Etienne 2013/9/26 Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com Once you close the file, your data is gone. Your data only exists as long as you keep the file open. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] QTouchEvents correctly placed only when the windows is on the primary screen?
Anyway, I think global touch coordinates should be w.r.t. the desktop, not the screen. If you want to simplify and say that tuio only permits mapping the touch area to an entire screen, you can still offset the coordinates according to the screen's position on the desktop. This approach does make sense to me, but since we are talking within Qt, can or does Qt do something like this behind the scenes? And by that I mean in a cross-platform fashion without you having to notice or bother too much (apart from some tiny bits of configuration, of course, with which I'd be totally ok). -- Andrea Franceschini ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] QTemporaryFile::open(OpenMode flags) is protected, but not in documentation
On 9/26/2013 3:57 AM, Etienne Sandré-Chardonnal wrote: Then I don't see the point of QTemporaryFile... You write some data and can't do anything with it? What are the legacy uses of it? I use temporary files for memory mapping points and storing undo data. Stuff that can get blown away when the application exits. - Open the file with a QFile for reading. Such use would be a large buffer we do not want to keep in memory. But according to what you said, it must be done before the QTemporaryFile was closed. Then, what guarantees the writes have been flushed? Don't open a temporary file from another place. It doesn't make sense. - Write data to a temporary file before renaming it to the final name. This is useful when a user saves a document overwriting the old version, in case the system or app crashes he does not loose all the work. But QFile::rename() closes before renaming, which means according to what you said the data is not guaranteed to be still there. When you write to that temporary file, the FILE ITSELF is not temporary - just the name. Don't confuse the two. In that case you're writing a REAL, NON-TEMP file with a temporary name, deleting the old file, then renaming the new file to the proper name. This is NOT the same thing as a temporary file. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] QTemporaryFile::open(OpenMode flags) is protected, but not in documentation
On quinta-feira, 26 de setembro de 2013 10:57:46, Etienne Sandré-Chardonnal wrote: Hi Thiago, Then I don't see the point of QTemporaryFile... You write some data and can't do anything with it? As others have answered, as long as you don't close it, you can get the data back. Also, it's always secure to pass the open file descriptor to other processes. Passing the file name is not secure on Unix, but is on Windows (you can delete an open file on Unix, but not on Windows). What are the legacy uses of it? - Open the file with a QFile for reading. Such use would be a large buffer we do not want to keep in memory. But according to what you said, it must be done before the QTemporaryFile was closed. Then, what guarantees the writes have been flushed? There's flush() to ensure that it gets flushed. Like I said above, if you reopen the same file *name* and you're in a hostile environment, you must assume that the file was deleted and recreated with different contents before you managed to reopen it. On Unix, that applies *even* if your QTemporaryFile is still open. In other words, if your software runs on Unix, if you open the same file *name* twice, you may get two different files. - Write data to a temporary file before renaming it to the final name. This is useful when a user saves a document overwriting the old version, in case the system or app crashes he does not loose all the work. But QFile::rename() closes before renaming, which means according to what you said the data is not guaranteed to be still there. There's a class for this. It's called QSaveFile. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
[Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
Hello List! This whole Elop thing got me thinking about the history of Qt and Nokia. Nothing's perfect, of course, and everything's a mixed bag, but, all in all, do people think Nokia's involvement with Qt ended up helping Qt or not? I started using Qt after Nokia acquired Trolltech (2008? 2009?) and then Nokia divested itself of Qt, if I remember correctly, in 2011, spinning off the commercial licensing to Digia. So I guess Nokia had Qt for three or four years. Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Thanks. K. Frank ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
Frank, et al.: My *OPINION* is that Nokia sucked a lot of the energy out of Qt as they tried to bend it into being a mobile platform. In the process, the desktop (and my own area of interest, the embedded world) was greatly forgotten. The only thing that saved Qt from being sucked into the black hole of Nokia's demise was the fact that Nokia finally disgorged Qt to Digia; otherwise Qt would have burned down with the rest of the oil platform, torched by Elop. Atlant -Original Message- From: interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of K. Frank Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:14 PM To: Qt-interest Subject: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt? Hello List! This whole Elop thing got me thinking about the history of Qt and Nokia. Nothing's perfect, of course, and everything's a mixed bag, but, all in all, do people think Nokia's involvement with Qt ended up helping Qt or not? I started using Qt after Nokia acquired Trolltech (2008? 2009?) and then Nokia divested itself of Qt, if I remember correctly, in 2011, spinning off the commercial licensing to Digia. So I guess Nokia had Qt for three or four years. Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Thanks. K. Frank ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/txHDrcanmFjGX2PQPOmvUvzSKb3+TPPm!QRWNw0plO!xcwPgo+dnhlp7j3JRijX9B08qPzQHNPLCXaTERp6oIw== to report this email as spam. This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt?
In Nokia-period, Qt gained (cot complet list) : * LGPL licence * creating Qt Quick for best mobile support * creating LightHouse (which become QPA) for best portability In final, I like actual Qt. I like Qt notorious, open gouvernance, mobile portability, future of Qt, etc. What care about Nokia ? It's past Guillaume - Mail original - De: Atlant Schmidt aschm...@dekaresearch.com À: K. Frank kfrank2...@gmail.com, Qt-interest interest@qt-project.org Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Septembre 2013 20:21:47 Objet: Re: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt? Frank, et al.: My *OPINION* is that Nokia sucked a lot of the energy out of Qt as they tried to bend it into being a mobile platform. In the process, the desktop (and my own area of interest, the embedded world) was greatly forgotten. The only thing that saved Qt from being sucked into the black hole of Nokia's demise was the fact that Nokia finally disgorged Qt to Digia; otherwise Qt would have burned down with the rest of the oil platform, torched by Elop. Atlant -Original Message- From: interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of K. Frank Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:14 PM To: Qt-interest Subject: [Interest] Semi-OT: Was Nokia net good or bad for Qt? Hello List! This whole Elop thing got me thinking about the history of Qt and Nokia. Nothing's perfect, of course, and everything's a mixed bag, but, all in all, do people think Nokia's involvement with Qt ended up helping Qt or not? I started using Qt after Nokia acquired Trolltech (2008? 2009?) and then Nokia divested itself of Qt, if I remember correctly, in 2011, spinning off the commercial licensing to Digia. So I guess Nokia had Qt for three or four years. Did this detour (for lack of a better word) end up being helpful? Thanks. K. Frank ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/txHDrcanmFjGX2PQPOmvUvzSKb3+TPPm!QRWNw0plO!xcwPgo+dnhlp7j3JRijX9B08qPzQHNPLCXaTERp6oIw== to report this email as spam. This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
