Problems swiching qtbindings

[AlexVhr]

Hi!

1. I have troubles switching qt bindings as per instruction here: "python qtbindings.py --platform=PySide" - the file qtbindings.py is nowhere to be found.

2. As I understand, qtalchemy now uses PySide by default, byt pyhacc uses PyQt. If PyQt is not installed, I get an import error. If it is installed, I get type mismatch errors. Maybe pyhacc defaults should be synced with the framework defaults?
P.S. I installed pyhacc by means of easy-install.exe. (Windows 7-64b, Py2.7.3-32b)

[Joel B. Mohler]

Thanks for trying pyhacc!

You are correct and I need to fix this awkward state of affairs on pypi.  I forgot that pyhacc hasn't been updated there for nearly a year.  There's a lot of incremental improvements in that time.

The qtbindings.py script is only available in a from-bitbucket-source install of pyhacc, but I can see that the readme doesn't make that very clear.  With the pyhacc update I hope to produce soon, PySide will be default I will probably sweep this whole qtbindings.py switcher further under the rug.  PySide continues to look like a promising future to me.

Joel

[Alexey Vihorev]

Thanks for the response!

And about pyside… Not sure about its promising future, honestly: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/pyside/2012-November/000841.html

[Joel B. Mohler]

On 12/03/2012 02:21 PM, Alexey Vihorev wrote:

Thanks for the response!

And about pyside… Not sure about its promising future, honestly: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/pyside/2012-November/000841.html

It's very unclear to me, but what I can say is that after learning a few gotchas (the same flavor of which I find in PyQt), I find PySide to be quite robust and usable as it stands.  The licensing is a compelling reason why PySide should succeed.  Personally I find Enthought's heavy use of PySide by way of Enaml incredibly heartening.  But, yes, if no one steps up to the plate, I guess the future is bleak.  However, it's in this strange sort of pseudo-supported world in that anyone can code with "confidence" based on PySide with the knowledge that they can jump ship to PyQt and pay the commercial price (or be gpl) -- I think it is a quite legitimate scenario to take either of those routes, but it may not be for you.  Really bizarre (L)GPL legal scenario in my mind.

Joel

[Alexey Vihorev]

What I wanted to say is that you should probably  retain binding switcher, that’s all, really J Anyway, any ETA on a fix? The thing is – I actually started a similar project a while ago, so I’d like to see yours in action and decide if I should continue on my own or abandon it and support your project instead.

 

From: qtalch...@googlegroups.com [mailto:qtalch...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joel B. Mohler
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:29 PM
To: qtalch...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Problems swiching qtbindings

 

On 12/03/2012 02:21 PM, Alexey Vihorev wrote:

[Joel B. Mohler]

On 12/03/2012 05:29 PM, Alexey Vihorev wrote:

What I wanted to say is that you should probably  retain binding switcher, that’s all, really J Anyway, any ETA on a fix? The thing is – I actually started a similar project a while ago, so I’d like to see yours in action and decide if I should continue on my own or abandon it and support your project instead.

Indeed, point taken about maintaining the functionality of the binding switcher.

I believe the current pypi versions of qtalchemy, qtviews, and pyhacc should be functional & up-to-date.  I've just updated them this morning.  I will verify and mark the bug accordingly when I get a chance to test it thoroughly on my windows machine.

Joel