Qt-jambi-interest Archive, December 2006
Feedbacks
Message 1 in thread
Hello all,
Just a little feedback on Qt jambi from a C++/Qt developer. The first
time I've heard about it, I was really skeptic.
Then, I test it, and I must admit I'm really surprised and impressed.
I have never done Java GUI development, just play a little bit with SWT
(I don't like it).
I've just made basic development with Qt jambi so far (GraphicView,
model/view), maybe there are other problems.
Good points :
- Eclipse integration is really good,
- I find my way, it's nearly the same API as Qt/C++,
- Signals/Slots are quite different, but once I understand it, it's
really easy to use,
- Integration with basic Java is good : use of String instead of
QString, List/QList... I think it's a good point, even if it was a bit
strange at first,
- The same examples in Qt jambi and Qt,
- QVariant for easy conversion,
- Your help on this list
Bad points (most of them are due to the technical preview state) :
- Parameters name (arg_0, arg_1) - I know you are working on it,
- QNativePointer : I understand the need of it now, but hide it as
much as possible,
- documentation (for me) : I find it really difficult to use javadoc
documentation, and I miss the assistant...
I was really impressed by the speed of development, and I think I'm
going to use Qt Jambi for fast prototyping !
I didn't find a way to create a custom widget with the designer...
"Promote as custom widget" ask for a C++ header for the moment (I didn't
investigate more).
Continue the good work,
Nicolas
Message 2 in thread
Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos schrieb:
> Hello all,
>
> I didn't find a way to create a custom widget with the designer...
> "Promote as custom widget" ask for a C++ header for the moment (I didn't
> investigate more).
>
You can solve this right with a small hack:
Open the ui file in a text editor and change the class attribute of the
widget in question.
It is a bit hackish, but it get's the job done.
-Lenny
Message 3 in thread
Lennart Steinke wrote:
> Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos schrieb:
>
>> Hello all,
>
>
>>
>> I didn't find a way to create a custom widget with the designer...
>> "Promote as custom widget" ask for a C++ header for the moment (I
>> didn't investigate more).
>>
> You can solve this right with a small hack:
> Open the ui file in a text editor and change the class attribute of the
> widget in question.
> It is a bit hackish, but it get's the job done.
And if the .ui file is in the same directory as the promoted widget, you
can actually just type the file name in the dialog and ignore the C++
include.
We're working on a designer plugin these days though, so we should be
able to remove all the C++'ness from it, such as the enum syntax in the
property sheet, signal/slot signatures etc. You'll see all this in the
next release.
best regards,
Gunnar
Message 4 in thread
Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Just a little feedback on Qt jambi from a C++/Qt developer. The first
> time I've heard about it, I was really skeptic.
> Then, I test it, and I must admit I'm really surprised and impressed.
Thanks ;-)
> Good points :
> - Eclipse integration is really good,
> - I find my way, it's nearly the same API as Qt/C++,
> - Signals/Slots are quite different, but once I understand it, it's
> really easy to use,
> - Integration with basic Java is good : use of String instead of
> QString, List/QList... I think it's a good point, even if it was a bit
> strange at first,
> - The same examples in Qt jambi and Qt,
> - QVariant for easy conversion,
> - Your help on this list
> Bad points (most of them are due to the technical preview state) :
> - Parameters name (arg_0, arg_1) - I know you are working on it,
> - QNativePointer : I understand the need of it now, but hide it as much
> as possible,
I think you'll find that most of these are solved in the next release.
> - documentation (for me) : I find it really difficult to use javadoc
> documentation, and I miss the assistant...
I guess its a matter of habbit and preference. I would expect at least
the java developers to be more happy with javadoc. Another advantage of
JavaDoc is how it integrates with various IDE's, like IntelliJ and Eclipse.
We would really like apprechate other peoples feedback on this.
best regards,
Gunnar
Message 5 in thread
On Friday 15 December 2006 15:23, Gunnar Sletta wrote:
> Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos wrote:
> > - documentation (for me) : I find it really difficult to use javadoc
> > documentation, and I miss the assistant...
>
> I guess its a matter of habbit and preference. I would expect at least
> the java developers to be more happy with javadoc. Another advantage of
> JavaDoc is how it integrates with various IDE's, like IntelliJ and Eclipse.
>
> We would really like apprechate other peoples feedback on this.
>
Hi!
The Javadoc format for the reference is mostly fine, but I really miss the
overview articles that were available in TP2. I found these to be quite
helpful, even if they were using C++ examples for explanation. The Qt
interface maps so nicely to Java that this wasn't too much of a problem for
me because I know both languages quite well. Do you have plans to include (a
possible update version) of these articles in later Jambi releases?
Regards,
Gregor
Message 6 in thread
Gregor Mückl wrote:
> On Friday 15 December 2006 15:23, Gunnar Sletta wrote:
>
>>Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos wrote:
>>
>>> - documentation (for me) : I find it really difficult to use javadoc
>>>documentation, and I miss the assistant...
>>
>>I guess its a matter of habbit and preference. I would expect at least
>>the java developers to be more happy with javadoc. Another advantage of
>>JavaDoc is how it integrates with various IDE's, like IntelliJ and Eclipse.
>>
>>We would really like apprechate other peoples feedback on this.
>>
>
>
> Hi!
>
> The Javadoc format for the reference is mostly fine, but I really miss the
> overview articles that were available in TP2. I found these to be quite
> helpful, even if they were using C++ examples for explanation. The Qt
> interface maps so nicely to Java that this wasn't too much of a problem for
> me because I know both languages quite well. Do you have plans to include (a
> possible update version) of these articles in later Jambi releases?
They are still available, but there is currently minimal links back to
them from the Javadoc.
http://doc.trolltech.com/qtjambi-1.0/com/trolltech/qt/qt-index.html
best regards,
Gunnar
Message 7 in thread
Gunnar Sletta schrieb:
>
> I guess its a matter of habbit and preference. I would expect at least
> the java developers to be more happy with javadoc. Another advantage of
> JavaDoc is how it integrates with various IDE's, like IntelliJ and Eclipse.
>
> We would really like apprechate other peoples feedback on this.
Well, I must admit that I use the "normal" QT online docs.
Mainly because of the grouping in packages. It
It's more easy to take a look at the "main classes" or "all classes"
lists online.
On the other hand, the Intellisense provided by most IDEs if the
javadoc is available does help.
Best regards,
Lenny
