Great, thanks for the effort.
/Kurt
On 22 Jan 2014, at 11:13, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:15:46PM +0100, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>> The majority seems to agree that this should NOT go into the QtNetwork
>> module, but should be an add-on.
>>
> the repository was now move
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:15:46PM +0100, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> The majority seems to agree that this should NOT go into the QtNetwork
> module, but should be an add-on.
>
the repository was now moved to qt/qtwebsockets.
- you need to adjust your git remotes (just edit .git/config)
- when you deem
Mandag 20. januar 2014 13.15.46 skrev Kurt Pattyn:
> Hi,
>
> The majority seems to agree that this should NOT go into the QtNetwork
> module, but should be an add-on. Votes so far:
>
> Peter Hartmann: +1 - add-on
> Richard Moore: +1 - add-on
> Konstantin Ritt: +1 - add-on
> Frederik Gladhorn: +1
Ok, let’s keep it as an add-on for now. I’m happy with that solution as well.
When it comes to the QML API, I do agree with Simon that having compatibility
with the standard JS web sockets API is important so people can re-use code.
But that doesn’t have to exclude a more declarative QML API.
C
Hi,
The majority seems to agree that this should NOT go into the QtNetwork module,
but should be an add-on.
Votes so far:
Peter Hartmann: +1 - add-on
Richard Moore: +1 - add-on
Konstantin Ritt: +1 - add-on
Frederik Gladhorn: +1 - add-on
Lars Knoll: +1 - QtNetwork
Simon Hausmann has questions re
