corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kelly <>
Subject Re: Is Qt the right choice ??
Date Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:44:41 GMT
Fair point - to be honest I really don’t want to do the GUI work, and think that the resistance
against Qt is extremely …. how should I say, unfortunate.

Sometimes the most effective way of motivating me is to make me angry. The “fine, i’ll
write my own damn cross-platform UI toolkit” response is what’s been driving me the fast
few days :)

But I agree this is work other equally-capable members of the project could do, my time is
best devoted to Flat (which I enjoy working on much more).

Dennis, is the UI abstraction layer something you would be willing to contribute to?

Dr Peter M. Kelly

PGP key: <>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

> On 5 Aug 2015, at 1:29 pm, jan i <> wrote:
> With all due respect I am a bit concerned.
> I think the interface to Qt and e.g. Cocoa, is a important interface for
> the project, so we should discuss the general design before you start just
> programming. I have
> no doubt that you are capable of doing it, but I am also sure there are
> other people (like myself) who also have experience can attribute
> positively to make the
> interface more flexible and a community effort.
> My second concern is that you are also working on "flat", which seems to me
> to be the most critical part for the project. I have a good understanding
> of what you are developing, but I am pretty sure the others don´t.
> You do not want to be the main programmer, but by taking all the
> interesting pieces and leaving bread crumbs, you will continue to stay the
> main developer. I
> am not the one to block you from doing things, but I would wish you would
> concentrate on getting flat to a condition where we can release it. The
> editor framework is
> surely a lower priority and can be done by others (e.g. me) of course with
> the input from the rest of the team.
> I know you have a fantastic energy and burn for the project, so please do
> not read this as I am criticizing, please read it as a concern as to how we
> get others
> to be main developers alongside you.
> We do not get new main developers, by developing pieces to interfaces you
> have defined. Taking me as the example, I have Qt experience (did core work
> on Qt years ago) but have 0% interest in developing code to a given
> interface for a platform I do not care about, so I would do other things
> (like I just did 32/64bit and zip), but
> it means I would not be a main developer.
> rgds
> jan i.
> On 5 August 2015 at 05:53, Peter Kelly <> wrote:
>>> On 4 Aug 2015, at 11:46 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <>
>> wrote:
>>> The actual construction of a functioning editor that might be available
>> in a source release and also a convenience binary for one or more platforms
>> is a bit down the road.  I understand that.
>>> Nevertheless, I am concerned that this podling is playing with fire and
>> tempting unfortunate consequences.
>>> I just want to give fair warning that even an "example" having only
>> unapproved dependencies may be frowned upon if one cannot build a fully
>> functioning version from the release without such a dependency.  Satisfying
>> that condition would be a great example and also in the spirit and letter
>> of ASF requirements for software provided by its projects.
>>> The NULL case that I have seen described does not qualify as
>> fully-functioning, in my opinion.  I look forward to further details in
>> that approach so one can explore providing a reference version having full
>> functionality the substitutability of dependencies, including optional use
>> of Qt.
>> As part of the abstraction layer I am developing, my intention is to make
>> a Cocoa backend (Apple’s API for building native OS X apps), as well as a
>> Qt backend. Thus we will have at least one platform on which it is possible
>> to build a fully-functioning version of the editor, and thus we can include
>> it as a core component of a Corinthia distribution.
>> The Qt backend will be optional in the sense that someone can choose not
>> to use it, if they prefer to instead write their own abstraction layer for
>> whatever platform they are targeting.
>> Contributions in the form of code to help support more platforms without
>> Qt will be very welcome.
>> —
>> 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