Updated Qt bindings

Harald Fernengel harryf at gmx.com
Fri Sep 23 09:27:04 PDT 2005


On Friday 23 September 2005 16:14, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> Perhaps we should leave the old bindings in (move them to a kde3
> directory or something like that and have an --enable-kde3 switch?)
> since KDE 4 is a long way away from what I hear.  I had a bunch of
> people asking me to enable it in Fedora, which I recently did, so they
> could use HAL with Konqueror.  However if they are in as bad and
> unmaintained a state as you seem to suggest I would just as soon take
> them out of Fedora.

Konqueror uses a minimal subset of the old bindings, basically only the 
mainloop integration. It doesn't use the message interface or anything else. 
Imho, it would make sense to fork the mainloop integration directly into the 
hal-ioslave, so konqueror can use it directly but we don't have to maintain 
the other interfaces around it.

> I have no objections to the Qt4 bindings going into the D-Bus CVS tree.
> What is their state?  How long until you consider them to be 1.0 quality
> (with all the goodies that come with that such as maintaining backwards
> compatibility with future releases)?  I would like to release all the
> core bindings (GLib, Python, Qt4?) as 1.0 when we release D-Bus 1.0
> (date pending but we should do a push to get the last features in soon).
> Of course that is not a hard requirement and if you need more time we
> can note that in the 1.0 release notes and change the build from auto to
> off by default.

I have already some users happily using the bindings and I've got a bit of 
autotest-coverage (I'd guess 30%). There are some smaller API changes on my 
TODO, but I don't plan any major architectural changes. Waldo is using the 
bindings for his DCOP-DBUS bridge and I haven't heard any major complains 
from him.

In other words: I won't panic if you decide to release :)


More information about the dbus mailing list