VOTING - Amarok2 to use Qt 4.4?

[Maximilian Kossick]

On 1/3/08, Shane King <kde at dontletsstart.com> wrote:
>
> Harald Sitter wrote:
> > Arrrhoy!
> >
> > Since Qt 4.4 is offering a lot more possability (like html rendering)
> for us
> > than 4.3, and also because it seems to be faster in terms of SVG
> rendering we
> > might want to switch to it (earliest possability would be preview 2
> since
> > there are some prety big performance issues in 4.4 atm).
>
> Maybe this is a stupid question, or the wrong time to bring it up, but
> anyway ...
>
> Why do we need Qt 4.4 for html rendering? What's wrong with khtml?
> Aren't they essentially the same code base anyway?
>
> If we're trying to avoid khtml because we prefer native Qt solutions,
> why are we using KDE at all? I ask because not having to deal with the
> rest of KDE would make my life much simpler from a Windows perspective,
> and would be more be practical with Qt 4.4 having Phonon. In any case it
> seems like Qt's plan is to "embrace and extend" all the useful stuff
> from KDE anyway.
>
> I remember way back in the day some apps had "optional" KDE integration:
> they'd compile as plain Qt apps or with some KDE extensions if so
> configured. I wonder if things could work like that.
>
> As far as the vote goes, I'd say AYE, since we're miles away from a
> release I think now is a better time to switch than later.
>
> Shane.


we need qt 4.4 for its "widgets on qgv" support, which makes it possible to
place a html widget in the context view. that's not possible at all with qt
4.3/khtml at the moment.

there was a discussion about writing amarok 2 as a pure qt application some
time ago (a year?), but it was decided not to do that (thank god!).

max
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20080103/a125c63c/attachment.html