On 06.05.24 13:08, Tor Arne Vestbø via Development wrote: > > >> On 6 May 2024, at 13:06, Juha Vuolle <juvuo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> QtNetworkauth leaves the QDesktopServices::openUrl() usage/non-usage >>> at the user's discretion, and thus that currently won't force a Gui >>> dependency. >> >> (Ah shoot. Correcting myself, in the new qtnetworkauth class we do >> need to call QDesktopServices::openUrl() too to forward any unhandled >> URLs.) > > Which you can do through the private QtCore API that we add.
AFAIU, it's the user that needs to make a connection to openUrl() from an OAuth signal: https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtnetworkauth.git/tree/examples/oauth/redditclient/redditwrapper.cpp#n28 So, no, private-only API won't cut it. Honestly, I don't understand the push-back for the move. It seems only logical to me: QUrl is in QtCore, so IMHO, it's only logical to have QUrl _handlers_ in QtCore, too. And in other emails, I showed use-cases of CLI programs that need openUrl(), but not the rest of QtGui. So, we have use-cases and we seem to have no technical reason to not move the code (if we can provide it as private API, there can't be many). So, if this boils down to private vs. public API: Why keep it private? It's not new API, it's just renamed for BC reasons. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@qt.io> (he/his) Principal Software Engineer The Qt Company Erich-Thilo-Str. 10 12489 Berlin, Germany www.qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
