corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: Is Qt the right choice ??
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:20:56 GMT
Hi Peter

sorry for top posting, but I try to answer both of your mails in one.

The licensing problem is a bit more complicated.

Apache source is not allowed to depend on third party libraries that uses
e.g. LGPL if you
want to read details you can find it here:
In general there are a number of loopholes:
- if the library is part of the OS we don´t care (think of Microsoft
SDK/MFC, OS-X core libraries and glibc), so webkit on OS-X is not a problem
- if the component is optional we don´t care in case of LGPL

I am not a lawyer so please don´t ask me about the legal difference, in us
asking for a library to be installed, or it being preinstalled.

We can surely use the "optional", because the editor is only one of many
consumers. To avoid discussions with the IPMC, I would prefer to rename
it "editor" that is more neutral.

And yes, we (the project) release only source (including optional source),
and e.g. I do derived work and publish binaries on my homepage.

All in all you have convinced me (again), and I will  update the cmake
files so editor becomes optional and in case it is activated expected Qt to
be installed.

I just wanted to raise the question again, since I now start putting hours
into that part, since win64 works nicely.

jan i.


On 27 July 2015 at 02:41, Peter Kelly <> wrote:

> > On 26 Jul 2015, at 5:16 pm, jan i <> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I am currently updating the cmake files to cover e.g. the editor and see
> > some problems.
> >
> > I know we decided to use Qt, but I would like to take the discussion
> again.
> >
> > If we use Qt the editor will never be a released product, it will remain
> an
> > optional product, and
> > I think we will want to position the editor as a main feature of
> corinthia.
> >
> > There is an alternative to Qt, which is a little more work but not much.
> If
> > we look at how peter
> > currently uses Qtwebkit it is pretty simple and static.
> I should add that in terms of the amount of code, there will ultimately be
> significantly more on the native side (using Qt or whatever other library)
> than the JS code that runs inside the web view. The editor code is 13,600
> lines of JavaScript. UX Write (excluding DocFormats and the JS Editor code)
> is 45,000.
> So we have two options:
> 1. Use Qt and write ~45,000 lines of code which works across platforms
> 2. Use native UI toolkits and write ~135,000 lines of code, to cover all
> three platform (Win/Linux/Mac)
> In practice, it wouldn’t be quite that bad, as some of that is non-UI code
> which could be written in plan C, albeit giving up some of the benefits of
> Qt e.g. string handling and common data structures. But it would be at
> least double the effort in both development and testing (unless we can find
> another suitable cross-platform UI toolkit).
> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> PGP key: <>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message