[bt-devel] KDE4, Qt4, and Windows porting... plus DCOP

[Joachim Ansorg]

Hi Gabriel,

> Have you decided on a Windows port?

Not yet.

> Are you sticking with KDE?

We've not yet decided what to do here.

> Or are you still gathering information?

Yes.

> If you're serious about making a cross-platform app, where does DCOP (which
> AFAIK is a KDE-only protocol) fit in to all this?

DCOP comes into the 1.5.x branch, because 1.5.x needs to be maintained while 
work is done on a port (or whatever we decide).
I promised to do DCOP before the port came up.

> How does a Windows port better serve the Church?

There's no up-to-date Sword frontend for windows. BibleCS is an advanced one 
but did not change for some years. That's a lack of man power.

> There are currently 3+ Sword-based Windows projects (one or two claiming to
> be "cross-platform"), in addition there are many commercial products that
> are reasonably priced.  (E.g. the free NASB QuickBible.)  While BibleTime
> is an excellent app, if the idea is to create a top-notch cross-platform
> app -- it might be better to unite with a project that's closer to
> realizing this goal than create a port to compete with them.  Porting
> BibleTime to Windows would be like doing *yet another* English translation
> of the Bible.

> What about Mac?
>
> There is only one Sword-based bible reader listed for Mac -- and it looks a
> little "green."  It may serve the church better to target this platform.
> That said, I don't know any Mac developers -- but prayer can solve that.

I think MacSword is a really nice application and actively maintained. Will 
does a great job with that. I don't see Mac as a main target for BibleTime. A 
cross-plattform BT would work on mac, too. 
Porting to Mac or to Windows involves the same coding (IMHO).

(And I don't have the money to buy a Mac =)

> About KDE4...
>
> They're currently working on *their* Qt4 port.  If the intent is to stick
> with KDE4, you may want to wait until their API is a little more solid.

Yes, that's right. I guess that KDE4 will be stable in 10-12 months. That's 
too long ...

> I did a quick grep to try and find all the KDE objects in BibleTime, which
> is attached.  This along the same lines as what Eric posted on 8/1/04. 
> Most of the objects have Qt eqivalents with similar functionality.  So
> going KDE3->Qt4 will be about as aggrivating as going from Qt3->Qt4.  (And
> it *is* aggrivating.)  This seems to be with the exception of KHTML and
> DCOP... which will either need to be abandoned or caged.

We will drop DCOP from a cross-plattform app. It's a KDE-spcific solution.
There's a kdenox branch of KHTML (for KDE3), which includes a lot of kdecore 
classes.
If we go Qt4 only I think we can use KDE4 widgets like KListView etc. to 
somplifiy our code. That way we don't depend on KDE, we just include their 
code.

> My $.02 and opionion:

Thank you for your insightful comments. I like the discussion about this.

IMHO, the most problematic part of the port is man power. I can't do it on my 
own.
I'm not sure if more people would join if we do the first cross-plattform 
Bible app. There's no cross-plattform Bible app yet, as far as I know.

> (*) I don't think a Windows port is a compelling objective, and I don't
> think it serves a need in the Church.  But, a Mac port would be compelling.

An aim of the Win port is to offer a decent windows Sword frontend.

> (*) In my own applications I don't like depending on KDE.  I love the idea
> of Qt4 only.  I love portable apps.  However, having kdebase be the only
> dependency *almost* seems reasonable.

We can import some of their widgets, KHTML includes some of them, anyway.

> (*) It would be nicer if KHTML were its own package (similar to what Apple
> did for Safari).  However, Gecko is already divided out like that.  In
> addition, since we're not trying to add things flash animation,
> QTextBrowser might be enough.

QTextBrowser is not enough, that's why we switched to KHTML. QTextBrowser just 
has the most basic formatting options, no CSS,etc. 

> Whatever decision you make -- be decisive. 

Yes, you're right!

>
> Anyway, I'll continue to pray with you about the future of BibleTime!

Yes, that's the best one can do.

Joachim