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 Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:29:51 GMT
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.

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