+1 I love Qt, but I'd tried to implement 3 mobile apps using Qt, and I always fall in some sort of limitation that annoys me. Like you said, pretty basic things like the video recording parameters.
And I look into the next steps and I don't see any much effort on that area, this was the main reason I'd cancel my subscription. Mobile seems more like a second class citizen. On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 at 18:02 Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: > 6 months of latency would be great. > But the things I talk about are pretty basic on mobile: > - Foreground/background lifecycle events, > - Screen wake locks, > - Notifications (local / remote) > > These have been aound since before Qt targeted mobile and are sorely STILL > missing from Qt. > > Things upcoming that I wouldn't complain about having to implement myself: > - Fingerprint scanning > As this is relatively new for Android and iOS platforms. Though the Atrix > (2010) had a fingerprint scanner, but only Android 6 had a platform API. > iPhone had it as of the 5S. > > It's like Qt is on mobile only if you want to put things on the screen and > do AJAX. But if you really want to do anything really "mobile" you're on > your own. We still can't control the video recording parameters on iOS > (Thanks to my company, it will land in 5.6.2 -- was supposed to land in > 5.6.1). Qt can only really be accurately described to be a Cross-platform > UI on mobile. Outside of that, you're writing Java and Obj-C. So call it > cross-platform for mobile is a stretch. I urging Qt to focus on eliminating > the asterisks, so it's proper Mobile (capital M) platform. > > With that said though, Qt's abstraction of various platform services is a > godsend. The fact that ReactNative gives you access to AVFoundation doesn't > do a whole lot when you have to write ReactNative that targets AVFoundation > and more code to target android.media SDK and handle the intricacies of > both in your own code base. So I think the Qt approach is right. I just > want more of it. :-) > > > *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2016 at 9:26 AM > *From:* "Xavier Bigand" <flamaros.xav...@gmail.com> > *To:* "Robert Iakobashvili" <corobe...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* interest <interest@qt-project.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [Interest] 5.8 Features? > Like you said I think that the iOS and Android progress too fast and on an > other cadence than Qt. > We should not forget that Qt has to create a unified cross platform API, > that is necessary harder than creating a new one for one platform. > > I think that a latency of 6 months to a year is still reasonable for Qt > depending on how it fall with releases. > > In my opinion if you need something faster, you may have to consider to > implement features your self. We started our application with 4.8 and > necessitas and Qt was much slower than now to integrate new features > provided by mobile devices. Some features like DPI retrieving wasn't > correctly implemented so because it was a blocker for us, we fixed it by > calling the native API on Android. > > > > > > 2016-06-24 15:00 GMT+02:00 Robert Iakobashvili <corobe...@gmail.com>: >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: >> > I feel like the last few releases have been run by the trolls, and not >> the users of Qt. I was hoping open governance would enable the community to >> direct Qt development, but I seem to have misinterpreted what it means. I'm >> looking for what's going into 5.8.. not much listed on the releases page. >> > >> > I'd like to suggest that mobile get some much needed love. >> > - Application state transitions; Foreground, background >> > - Background processing API >> > - Screen wake lock API >> > - In-app Notifications: local, remote >> > >> > While I have those characterized as "mobile" there are things like >> notifications occurring on desktop platforms. >> > >> > Any thoughts? >> > >> >> Agree with Jason that mobile support needs more love >> and adding "Native, native, native ..." >> >> However, it could be that progress made at iOS and Android side is too >> fast and >> our expectations from Qt are too high? >> >> As any cross-platform framework Qt has its limitations. >> Still, it has good integration points to allow additions of native code. >> >> jm4c to add. >> >> Kind regards, >> Robert >> _______________________________________________ >> Interest mailing list >> Interest@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > > > -- > Xavier > _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
