Hello,
On 20/01/12 11:53 PM, ext Laszlo Papp lp...@kde.org wrote:
Hoe about QtAudio3D then?
I am not familiar with Qt module naming conventions, but I think it is
better than Qt3DAudio (ie. 3D would be more logical at the end of the
module name) since:
a) It is less likely to confuse someone
On 1/20/12 1:42 AM, ext michael.godd...@nokia.com
michael.godd...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Laszlo,
On 19/01/12 6:37 PM, ext Laszlo Papp lp...@kde.org wrote:
Sorry about the delay - there has been no progress that I've seen. I
repinged again recently but will do again.
Would it be the best to call
Hoe about QtAudio3D then?
I am not familiar with Qt module naming conventions, but I think it is
better than Qt3DAudio (ie. 3D would be more logical at the end of the
module name) since:
a) It is less likely to confuse someone into thinking it has any
relevance to Qt3.
b) More consistent with
Hi Laszlo,
On 9/01/12 4:52 PM, ext Laszlo Papp lp...@kde.org wrote:
The module name would be either QtOpenAL or 3D Audio. Either one works
for me.
I'd prefer QtOpenAL because there are other 3D audio systems (if less
popular), but there may be a trademark issue. I've asked Cristy about
this
