Qt Apps banned from Mac App Store?

[Oliver Knoll]

Did you see me use the word "binary" anywhere?

Ok, sorry, my wrong.

If an application writes all its settings in place X and then you upgrade Qt and suddenly the same application tries to read those same settings from place Y (and of course fails) then in my world this breaks backwards compatibility.

Unfortunatelly your conclusion is again wrong here: If you had understood the idea of the provided patch you would have noticed that "Qt does not suddenly write its config file to place Y"!

The idea of the patch is that an application can deliberately decide that the Qt configuration is to be written into the application settings file. And again, please notice the distinction between "Qt settings" aka ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist and application settings.

Qt can't be upgraded to change the location automatically because lots of already existing applications would be broken.

Again, please read and understand the original proposition of the patch: nowhere it sais that these changes are automatic! The idea is that an additional method in the Qt API would be provided and the application could control where the (content of) com.trolltech.plist would be written.

It is solely the reponsibility of the author of an application that wants to be accepted by *any* store/site/whatever to be compliant with this store/site/whatever's requirements and it can be done without breaking all other existing applications.

Correct. However - for whatever reasons - you seem to wilfully ignore the fact that the current Qt API does not provide any means to control the location of the generated file com.trolltech.plist. Or at least the generation thereof.

On Mac deploying the qt.conf file inside the App Bundle is usually done, as to define the plugin paths etc. However a quick look at http://doc.trolltech.com/4.7/qt-conf.html did not reveal any possibility to change the location of said com.trolltech.plist.

And again: if an application creates a configuration file which does not adhere to the Mac Store acceptance/name convention tests, such as ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist, then this is a no-go.

The patch - or lets call it "temporary workaround" - provided by AronR exactly helps in this situation, whereas your comments like "You can place your settings wherever you want, nothing needs to be "fixed" for this." show either your arrogance or your complete misunderstanding of the problem at hand.

The problem you describe is nothing new and not only related to Macs.

For once correct. The ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist is probably generated since Qt 4.0, maybe even before. So what's your point? And on Windows and Linux one faces the same. But so far this was not an issue, since no 3rd party like Apple cares in this case.

But yes, if I run my Qt app on a virgin Windows installation I most likely also get all kind of Qt related registry entries (not explicitly created by my app through QSettings).

But changing this behaviour in Qt4 on a global level simply can't be done because of the reason I mentioned.

Yes, it can, as shown above: existing Qt apps would still read the same - and untouched - ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist, whereas Qt apps "designed for the Mac Store" would call the appropriate Qt method and store/read their global Qt settings form their own private configuration file, which would adhere to the naming and location standards of Apple. Exactly what the patch does and suggests.

If the settings storage is really the only thing preventing Qt apps from being accepted by Apple (which I doubt is the case)

On what basis do you doubt so? So far we only know that Apple has rejected apps due to file paths, as also being discussed on Stack Overflow! Then there is the issue with "sheets", which most likely would also be fixed before Apple would accept them (unless the Apple tests do not realise the "focus" issue which apparently exists).

then there is no problem in adjusting the path where this particular application stores its settings as it is fully in control of the developer.

... there will be no problem if future Qt APIs provide any means to control the location of the global Qt settings.

The settings you mention can be fully controlled by a file called qt.conf .... This file controls default locations for things such as libraries, plugins, imports and settings.

And I am sure you have some concrete URL which would also show how to control the location of the global Qt globa settings. Because all the other things like the plugin locations do not help! So why don't you enlighten us and show us the concrete entry in qt.conf which controls the location of ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist? I already gave an URL which does not mention anything about ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist!

Since both patches posted by AronR modify the way QSettings work (edit: sorry, one deals with QDesktopServices and one with QSettings) so both (edit: probably just one, the other can be fixed by not using QDesktopServices, it seems qt.conf doesn't allow to change the cache location, at least docs don't mention it)

For simplicity's sake let's focus on ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist, shall we?

cases should be fixed with qt.conf (the only "special" thing about the patch is it deals with organization name called "Trolltech").

And how? Again you missed to give the concrete entry necessary to control the location/creation of ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist!

And the patch naturally modifies QSettings because this is also the mean by which Qt itself stores its global settings, not surprisingly. And yes, this "special thing", the name Trolltech, is exactly among the things which the Apple tests complain about! Besides the location of the file itself I guess...

Plus you don't need any persistent configuration files for any of the Qt-bundled applications to deploy your own application with settings and all.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean...

So how exactly do the patches posted fix this?

By controlling where the global Qt settings are stored: not in ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist, but in the application configuration file, which adheres to location and naming conventions given by Apple.

They deal with QSettings

... because that is the place through which Qt stores its own global settings...

and QDesktopServices

We already agreed to focus on ~/Library/Preferences/com.trolltech.plist for now. I agree that in case of the QDesktopServices that is under control by the application and can be fixed on an application level.

I will skip answering the rest of your highly cultural post.

You may refuse to comment on my concrete objections to the way you answer to people. Let me just tell you why I was so upset by your arrogang posts, as in "People just need to use that", "there is nothing to fix" etc.

It is at the lowest level of newsgroups communication culture to put words into other people's mouth they never said by quoting them wrong or incompletely! Even though that was highly offensive I ignored you. But you kept on saying wrong things like "They won't include it." (How would you know?) and "It would break compatibility with existing apps." (which it doesn't, q.e.d.), because either you just like to object to other people's statement or because of lack of undertanding of the topic being discussed.

In any case, lets me - exceptionally - show you what I mean by "putting words into other people's mouth":

Me: "...as this might influence Apple's acceptance testing! And that is what this thread is all about?"

You [after conveniently for you only quoting the 2nd sentence]: "About sheets? Not really "

I don't know how you derive from Apple's acceptance testing and that the relation "sheets". Off course you did this on purpose, to make me look ridiculous or whatever.

I don't have a problem with people who are beginners and ask "stupid questions". I don't have a problem with people who are wrong, as long as they show their willingness to learn and accept the fact that they said something wrong. I don't have a problem with people that say something stupid or unfriendly, as long as they apologise later on.

However I do have a problem with people acting teacherlike, ignorant and say wrong or unhelpful things, and all that with an arrogant tone! I was also following your comments on another topic here with regards to Gestures, so it is not the first time that I noticed your unhelpful posts, even though I must admit you do exhibit some knowledge about Qt - if you would just read and understand what other people say!

Your reaction to my critique (which was also put in harsh words, I agree) just proves your inability to take and react to it:

Private mail from you:
"You have received an infraction at Qt Centre Forum.

Reason: Inappropriate Language
-------
Please do not use words that can be considered offensive towards other people."

Ha, like I care! One point minus, so what!


However, I do care that you apparently are administrator in this forum. That means I cannot put you on my ignore lists, as I already tried before ("Adminstrators cannot be ignored").

So either you try to improve (or at least don't reply to my posts), or I kindly ask you to put me on your ignore lists, so you are not tempted to answer my posts. And in the best case I would then not see your posts either. Is that possible?

Thanks for your understanding!
Oliver