> But is it a performance issue, a potential threading problem, what? not to my knowledge, not to my knowledge.
It's just that: 1) I/O is async having more won't make it faster 2) Whatever resources are being managed will be managed separately, unaware of the rest. I regularly (accidentally) used two - one built into QML and one for C++ land. See also http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qqmlnetworkaccessmanagerfactory.html > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 1:41 PM > From: "Tom Isaacson" <tom.isaac...@navico.com> > To: "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com>, "interest@qt-project.org" > <interest@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Interest] Multiple QNetworkAccessManagers for a single app > > But is it a performance issue, a potential threading problem, what? > > We have a large codebase and this practice hasn't been followed, I'm > wondering what the potential impact is and whether it's worth fixing. > > Thanks. > > Tom Isaacson > > On Wednesday, 10 January 2018 20:26:16 PST Tom Isaacson wrote: > > There’s a comment in the QNetworkAccessManager help: > > “One QNetworkAccessManager should be enough for the whole Qt application.” > > > > There are several discussions online about whether this is a > > requirement or just a recommendation. Consensus seems to be that it’s > > a recommendation but what’s the best practice? > > It's a suggestion. And there's a good reason for it being a suggested: it's > the best practice. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
