Wt

Currently, as far as I understand, the only place Qt is used in the Wt framework is in the libwtwithqt compatibility layer. I would find it very dangerous in term of future software development to rely on a sole external framework such as Qt (a great framework by the way). Qt seems to be more and more oriented toward business and less on open source code so that could be a risk to add more Qt into Wt. The little overhead for developers to have both (qt and boost) is reasonable. My 2 cents, keep the compatibility layer as it is needed by many developers working on multiplatform applications but throw boost out of Wt...

Mathieu Vadnais wrote:

Currently, as far as I understand, the only place Qt is used in the Wt framework is in the libwtwithqt compatibility layer. I would find it very dangerous in term of future software development to rely on a sole external framework such as Qt (a great framework by the way). Qt seems to be more and more oriented toward business and less on open source code so that could be a risk to add more Qt into Wt. The little overhead for developers to have both (qt and boost) is reasonable. My 2 cents, keep the compatibility layer as it is needed by many developers working on multiplatform applications but do not throw boost out of Wt...

Namasthe Mathieu,

I see that QT has complete framework both for core and GUI. It also has extremely rich set of widgets. The only issue is that it does not have a good webkit like wt. The qtWebKit is too heavy...oriented towards desktops.

So I think it should be pretty easy to develop wt solely on qt but for the philosophical discussion of OSS and non-OSS. The best part is the very good documentation. So if we have native qt support throughout then wt will be easy to work with and also easy to maintain.

There are tons of OSS projects on qt. So there is no chance of them going non-oss way.

Standardization on qt would be, in my opinion, a great boost for wt.

Regards

Rathna

Hello Rathna,

One major point in favor of using boost is also that it targets a standardization of its libraries by the C Standard Committee. Eventually, we might think that the boost features used by Wt could be standardized into C language. This will never happen with a library such as Qt.

Regards,

Mathieu

@ I would find it very dangerous in term of future software development to rely on a sole external framework such as Qt (a great framework by the way). Qt seems to be more and more oriented toward business and less on open source code so that could be a risk to add more Qt into Wt.

Then probably it shouldn't be called Wt. It sets wrongs expectations for users :-/

"It sets wrong expectations for users"

Not at all. I just recently started working with Wt, and my expectation was that it would feel much like Qt. Even though Wt doesn't actually rely on Qt, it is made in exactly the same spirit.

Expecting C developers to be familiar with the little boost that is in Wt is a very small requirement, and not much more than asking them to be familiar with the standard libraries.