On 17 January 2014 19:49, Kurt Pattyn <[email protected]> wrote: > So, based on the feedback, can everybody agree on QtWebSockets being an > add-on? > It keeps the core as is, and provides an opt-in for applications that need it.
+1 from me. I think it's a good addition to the framework. Rich. > > Cheers, > > Kurt > >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 12:25, Richard Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 17 January 2014 07:54, Knoll Lars <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> From a feature point of view it would fit best into Qt Network. But it's a >>> sizeable piece of code added to Qt Network. Do you have any numbers on how >>> this changes the size of Qt Network? >>> >>> Peter and Rich, and comments from your side? >> >> Given that the websocket code contains both C++ networking stuff and >> also QML it cannot all go into qt network as this would introduce a >> circular dependency on the qtdeclarative module. This would mean >> splitting it into two one part in qt network and another in qt >> declarative which I think would be a bit confusing for users. >> >> On the other hand as an addon module the dependency problem is gone >> and it can be available as a single self-contained module (with >> unified documentation) which I suspect would be easier on those using >> the module. I don't think adding QT += websockets to the pro file >> would be a barrier for adoption. >> >> Given the above (and ignoring the issue of code-size etc.) my initial >> feeling is that an addon module is probably a better choice for users >> of the module. >> >> Cheers >> >> Rich. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
