Qt 3.2 requirement

[Lubos Lunak]

On Tuesday 29 of July 2003 20:34, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2003 18:17, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > "decent layering" is a nice theory.

 Hmm. In case you're trying to say it is only theory and nothing more, how 
comes so many apps work with X, and yet don't contain a single Xlib call? 
Many of them do, of course - I guess this has something to do with theory and 
practice being the same only in theory :).
[snip]

>
> Let's review the facts:
>
> Supporting more than one version of a library (be it Qt or kdelibs)
> leads to
> 1. better layering of the code, since there is pressure to find code
>    that works with both versions to reduce #ifdefs and enable switching
>    to the later library version _without_ recompiling (what do we need
>    BC for if we don't support this?)

 This can be achieved even without supporting multiple versions, just like I 
bet some people would manage to put in ugly hacks even if we supported Qt 
back to Qt-3.0.

> 2. a stable framework for app developers to work with (esp. commercial
>    projects that KDE wants to be so attractive for)

 If you're suggesting Qt-3.1 is still good enough for KDE, how about telling 
the app developers KDE-3.1 is still good enough? Then they'll have stable 
framework as well, won't they? They'll be in the same position WRT KDE just 
like you suggest we should be WRT Qt.

> 3. more testers for HEAD apps since thay can check out bleeding-edge
>    apps on a stable desktop.

 Perhaps. But I run HEAD apps from time to time in my stable KDE, and they 
work too. If one can compile HEAD app, they can compile Qt+kdelibs as well.

>
> Whereas the only arguments against supporting multiple versions are
> 1. It's a pain (unspecified up to now)
> 2. Less testing with the later lib.

   3. One can't use new features. We already wait a year for new features to 
come with Qt (and that's already getting on my nerves sooo much). Should we 
now wait two years, or rather duplicate them in order to support also the 
older version?

>
> My rebuttal of those arguments:
> ad 1: The pain is self-made and stems from (a) violating the layering
>    and (b) people that don't respect the backwards compat policy.

 And also from (c) the fact that shit happens, and theory and practice in 
practive sometimes differ. E.g. Qt-3.0.1 and Qt-3.2 are not quite compatible 
when it comes to certain small details (like the plugins, changed around 
3.0.3 IIRC).
[snip]

-- 
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SuSE CR, s.r.o.  e-mail: l.lunak at suse.cz , l.lunak at kde.org
Drahobejlova 27  tel: +420 2 9654 2373
190 00 Praha 9   fax: +420 2 9654 2374
Czech Republic   http://www.suse.cz/