On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 13:52 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 11:02 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote: > > > > I understood from Patrick's earlier comments, that the EDS > > change would "just work" without the need to patch Qt > > mobility. Does not seem to case now? > > > > Patrick was hoping it would be possible to use EDS by default without > > patching qt-mobility. I looked into it but it does not seem to be > > possible (It explicitly uses tracker in the project file and the code > > would fallback to the "memory" backend if tracker is not installed). > > So patching qt-mobility seems to be the way to go (it is just a > > compile-time DEFINE is a project file). > > The approach that I suggested after Chris found this snag is the > following: > * QtMobility will be compiled with QtContacts-EDS as default > engine, to ensure that it is used when multiple engines are > installed (already done in devel:meego-ux). This is the kind of > preferred treatment that Tracker enjoyed so far. > * The memory engine will be packaged separately and thus not be > installed by default (not done yet).
Chris told me that my cunning plan doesn't work because the memory engine isn't provided as a separate plugin as I thought. So the fallback plan has to be to extend the default order of engines: first EDS (at least on MeeGo, to align with the architecture), then Tracker, then the rest. Chris is working on it. IMHO QtContact should have a configuration mechanism for these priorities instead of hard-coding them. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
