Hello, Ruth,
Glad
to hear from you again. I am sorry Qyoto didn't work out
for you but I do agree SWIG would be a better solution, with better performance indeed. I'll
try to find free time to work on it as soon as possible.
However, I cannot make any promise yet.
Best
regards,
Dimitar
Dimitar
and others,
I evaluated using Qyoto for a project I'm working
on and - with regret for all the hard work Dimitar
had obviously put in - decided against it, both
because it was buggy and because it was very slow.
When I investigated the speed issue SMOKE relies
on textual matching of function signatures to call
functions. Admittedly the hashes, once matched,
are hashed and cached, but still... It also
involved at least 2 transitions from managed to
unmanaged code, which IIRC are expensive in
themselves.
People I know have used SWIG to good effect but I
have no personal experience.
A statically linked shim file (not a DLL, if
possible) - i.e. a set of functions coded in
managed code that each make an unmanaged call to
the "real" function would be the way I would
expect. Coding this by hand would be painful, so a
program to generate them is the obvious response.
I believe this is the SWIG way.
If it were possible I would look into using
something like an XML file containing the
interface definition, maybe itself initially
generated from the .h files, and which can then be
adapted and enhanced to improve it. If the Qt
and/or SWIG community were receptive this might
become something people would support generally -
e.g. including PyQt et al. - which would benefit
everyone.
HTH
Ruth
Dimitar Dobrev wrote:
Dylan,
Thank you for your
suggestion. I know about CXXI but it
wouldn't be my choice for the following reasons:
1. It is both
incomplete and abandoned;
2. It
relies on Reflection.Emit which is not
supported on iOS; Qt will soon officially run
on iOS and it'd be nice if the bindings worked on that
platform too.
Regards,
Dimitar
On
Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Gour
<gour@atmarama.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 11
Jul 2013 06:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Dimitar Dobrev <dpldobrev@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> 3. I don't want to have
anything to do with SMOKE any more
so if you'd
> like to take this path, you'd
be on your own.
Isn't it pity that there is no more
interest in having Qt bindings for
the .NET/Mono? :-(
There was an announcement some years
back on one of the Mono blogs about an
interop layer for C++ (
https://github.com/mono/cxxi).
It was never mentioned again and I think
a grue ate it, but it looked like a
really nice set of libraries if someone
maintained it beyond the initial proof
of concept. I also don't know how
tightly it is tied to Mono itself and if
a cross-platform version could be done
with it.
Looking at the code, they were also
using Qt as the example in their POC.
- Dylan
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
--
Software Manager & Engineer
Tel: 01223 414180
Blog: http://www.ivimey.org/blog
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/ruthivimeycook/
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings