Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/22/17, 10:51 AM, "Simon Hausmann" wrote: >Hi, > >I have scheduled a new build of the current master branch against qt's dev >branch: > >http://testresults.qt.io/coin/integration/playground/qtremoteobjects/tasks/web_playground_qtremoteobjects_1485097792522 > > >5 out

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

From: "Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)" <bstot...@ford.com> Sent: Jan 22, 2017 15:13 To: Simon Hausmann; Lars Knoll; Alistair Adams; Buddenhagen Oswald Cc: Qt development mailing list Subject: Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9 On 1/13/17, 3:22 AM,

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/13/17, 3:22 AM, "Simon Hausmann" wrote: >I scheduled a test build in the CI against 5.8 (as dev continues to be broken). What are the implications for feature freeze if dev is still broken? >There are few issues: > >1) namespaced build doesn't work Fixed >2)

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Stottlemyer, > Brett (B.S.) > Sent: keskiviikkona 18. tammikuuta 2017 15.50 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Swi

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/18/17, 1:52 AM, "Tuukka Turunen" wrote: >> > >When QtRO becomes part of Qt, would you continue as the maintainer of the >module and have adequate time to polish it so that it can be fully supported >in the upcoming Qt releases? > >Yours, > > Tuukka Sure,

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

> On 16 Jan 2017, at 16:14, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 05:07:30PM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: >> >> If you really did mean other object distributions systems, which ones are >> you thinking of? Microsoft’s Component Object Model is

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

nt@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for > Qt 5.9 > ... > > For providing Qt new functionality, I feel the existing QtRO design is sound. > If at some point #1 becomes a reality, I would be glad to revisit a generic >

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/16/17, 10:14 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote: >of course, it may be that this task is too complex to get right, in >which case qt bindings for specific systems are a more

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 05:07:30PM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > My interpretation was that Lars was looking for differences from a Qt user > perspective, and I think my reply was accurate from that perspective. I > would say you are looking at it from the s/w implementation

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/13/17, 10:09 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote: >for my taste, there are way too many inconclusive/irrelevant details in >this description. a more layer-oriented approach

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 01:58:45AM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > On 12 January 2017 at 08:39, Lars Knoll wrote: > >* The module solves a problem our users have > > - It either implements new and so far non existent functionality > > - Or it solves an existing problem in a new and

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

a rather common thing. Simon From: Lars Knoll Sent: Jan 13, 2017 08:25 To: Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) Cc: Qt development mailing list Subject: Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9 Hi Brett, > On 13 Jan 2017, at 02:58, Stott

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

ng. Simon From: Lars Knoll Sent: Jan 13, 2017 08:25 To: Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) Cc: Qt development mailing list Subject: Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9 Hi Brett, > On 13 Jan 2017, at 02:58, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) <bstot...

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

Hi Brett, > On 13 Jan 2017, at 02:58, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > > On 12 January 2017 at 08:39, Lars Knoll wrote: > >> From the discussion so far I didn't hear too many things that speak against >> a TP, the code duplication with moc is one of the issues that fall

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 12 January 2017 at 08:39, Lars Knoll wrote: >From the discussion so far I didn't hear too many things that speak against a >TP, the code duplication with moc is one of the issues that fall into the >'flagged and need to be resolved before moving out of TP' category for me. How >about the

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Stottlemyer, > Brett (B.S.) > Sent: torstaina 12. tammikuuta 2017 3.19 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Swi

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 12 January 2017 at 08:39, Lars Knoll wrote: > Here are the criteria I think we should have (and that we IMO implicitly used > in the past): This smells like something we should be turning into a QUIP. Eddy. ___ Development mailing list

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

I didn't find time to have a more detailed look at the code so far, but hope to get to it over the weekend. But in general I think we need to put the bars for becoming a TP at the right level. It's not a fully supported module yet, and we put it out especially to collect feedback. So it

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/11/17, 11:50 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote: >> >but my naive understanding of rpc implementations is that you actually >> >want to create some idl (is this what .rep is

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

> -Original Message- > From: Development [mailto:development- > bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Oswald > Buddenhagen > Sent: keskiviikkona 11. tammikuuta 2017 18.50 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Switch Qt Rem

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:42:38AM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > I guess to start off, I don’t consider QtRO to be a RPC mechanism. > In my mind, RPC would be akin to exposing a QObject’s slots for calling > individually. With QtRO (which only works Qt to Qt, it isn’t currently >

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/11/17, 4:43 AM, "m...@kdab.com on behalf of Marc Mutz" wrote: >Hi Brett, > >On Wednesday 11 January 2017 01:42:38 Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: >> With this picture in mind, the key to getting it to work is to hook into >> qt_metacall and

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

Hi Brett, On Wednesday 11 January 2017 01:42:38 Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > With this picture in mind, the key to getting it to work is to hook into > qt_metacall and pass the invocations between processes. This takes custom > code, so QtRO has repc (REPlica Compiler) for this. It reads

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/10/17, 7:42 PM, "Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)" wrote: >On 1/10/17, 7:11 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" >oswald.buddenha...@qt.io> wrote: > >>you mostly lost me here, because i just

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/10/17, 7:11 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote: >On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:42:12AM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: >> The processing of QObject code by repc to

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:42:12AM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > The processing of QObject code by repc to generate the .rep input file > format was added afterwards. It allows existing Qt header files to be > used with QtRO with compile time checks. We don’t use that feature much >

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On 1/9/17, 10:54 AM, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote: >i had a quick look at the repo: >- there is still copy of moc's c++ parser in there. not much to do about > it at this

Re: [Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:50:52PM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote: > As the maintainer for the Qt Remote Objects (QtRO) playground project, > I would like to officially request moving it from a playground project > to a Qt project. > i had a quick look at the repo: - there is still copy

[Development] Switch Qt Remote Objects to a Tech Preview for Qt 5.9

As the maintainer for the Qt Remote Objects (QtRO) playground project, I would like to officially request moving it from a playground project to a Qt project. For now (Qt 5.9), I’d like to keep it as a Tech Preview, as there are some elements of the API we would still like to extend, and we’d