obs-studio/obs/window-basic-main.cpp

580 lines
14 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

/******************************************************************************
Copyright (C) 2013-2014 by Hugh Bailey <obs.jim@gmail.com>
Copyright (C) 2014 by Zachary Lund <admin@computerquip.com>
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
******************************************************************************/
2013-12-22 16:42:02 -08:00
#include <obs.hpp>
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
#include <QMessageBox>
#include <QShowEvent>
#include <QFileDialog>
#include "obs-app.hpp"
#include "window-basic-settings.hpp"
#include "window-namedialog.hpp"
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
#include "window-basic-main.hpp"
#include "qt-wrappers.hpp"
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
#include "ui_OBSBasic.h"
using namespace std;
2013-11-22 15:20:52 -08:00
Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(OBSScene);
Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(OBSSceneItem);
OBSBasic::OBSBasic(QWidget *parent)
: OBSMainWindow (parent),
ui (new Ui::OBSBasic),
outputTest (NULL)
{
ui->setupUi(this);
}
void OBSBasic::OBSInit()
{
/* make sure it's fully displayed before doing any initialization */
show();
App()->processEvents();
if (!obs_startup())
throw "Failed to initialize libobs";
if (!InitGraphics())
throw "Failed to initialize graphics";
if (!InitAudio())
throw "Failed to initialize audio";
obs_add_draw_callback(OBSBasic::RenderMain, this);
signal_handler_connect(obs_signalhandler(), "source-add",
OBSBasic::SourceAdded, this);
signal_handler_connect(obs_signalhandler(), "source-remove",
OBSBasic::SourceRemoved, this);
signal_handler_connect(obs_signalhandler(), "channel-change",
OBSBasic::ChannelChanged, this);
/* TODO: this is a test */
obs_load_module("test-input");
obs_load_module("obs-ffmpeg");
/* HACK: fixes a qt bug with native widgets with native repaint */
ui->previewContainer->repaint();
}
OBSBasic::~OBSBasic()
{
/* free the lists before shutting down to remove the scene/item
* references */
ui->sources->clear();
ui->scenes->clear();
obs_shutdown();
}
OBSScene OBSBasic::GetCurrentScene()
{
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QListWidgetItem *item = ui->scenes->currentItem();
return item ? item->data(Qt::UserRole).value<OBSScene>() : nullptr;
}
OBSSceneItem OBSBasic::GetCurrentSceneItem()
{
QListWidgetItem *item = ui->sources->currentItem();
return item ? item->data(Qt::UserRole).value<OBSSceneItem>() : nullptr;
}
void OBSBasic::UpdateSources(OBSScene scene)
{
ui->sources->clear();
obs_scene_enum_items(scene,
[] (obs_scene_t scene, obs_sceneitem_t item, void *p)
{
OBSBasic *window = static_cast<OBSBasic*>(p);
window->AddSceneItem(item);
return true;
}, this);
}
/* Qt callbacks for invokeMethod */
void OBSBasic::AddScene(OBSSource source)
{
const char *name = obs_source_getname(source);
obs_scene_t scene = obs_scene_fromsource(source);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QListWidgetItem *item = new QListWidgetItem(QT_UTF8(name));
item->setData(Qt::UserRole, QVariant::fromValue(OBSScene(scene)));
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
ui->scenes->addItem(item);
signal_handler_t handler = obs_source_signalhandler(source);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
signal_handler_connect(handler, "add", OBSBasic::SceneItemAdded, this);
signal_handler_connect(handler, "remove", OBSBasic::SceneItemRemoved,
this);
}
void OBSBasic::RemoveScene(OBSSource source)
2013-12-28 21:29:13 -08:00
{
const char *name = obs_source_getname(source);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QListWidgetItem *sel = ui->scenes->currentItem();
QList<QListWidgetItem*> items = ui->scenes->findItems(QT_UTF8(name),
Qt::MatchExactly);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
if (sel != nullptr) {
if (items.contains(sel))
ui->sources->clear();
delete sel;
}
}
void OBSBasic::AddSceneItem(OBSSceneItem item)
{
obs_scene_t scene = obs_sceneitem_getscene(item);
obs_source_t source = obs_sceneitem_getsource(item);
const char *name = obs_source_getname(source);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
if (GetCurrentScene() == scene) {
QListWidgetItem *listItem = new QListWidgetItem(QT_UTF8(name));
listItem->setData(Qt::UserRole,
QVariant::fromValue(OBSSceneItem(item)));
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
ui->sources->insertItem(0, listItem);
}
sourceSceneRefs[source] = sourceSceneRefs[source] + 1;
}
void OBSBasic::RemoveSceneItem(OBSSceneItem item)
{
obs_scene_t scene = obs_sceneitem_getscene(item);
if (GetCurrentScene() == scene) {
for (int i = 0; i < ui->sources->count(); i++) {
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QListWidgetItem *listItem = ui->sources->item(i);
QVariant userData = listItem->data(Qt::UserRole);
if (userData.value<OBSSceneItem>() == item) {
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
delete listItem;
break;
}
}
}
obs_source_t source = obs_sceneitem_getsource(item);
int scenes = sourceSceneRefs[source] - 1;
if (scenes == 0) {
obs_source_remove(source);
sourceSceneRefs.erase(source);
}
}
void OBSBasic::UpdateSceneSelection(OBSSource source)
{
if (source) {
obs_source_type type;
obs_source_gettype(source, &type, NULL);
Revamp API and start using doxygen The API used to be designed in such a way to where it would expect exports for each individual source/output/encoder/etc. You would export functions for each and it would automatically load those functions based on a specific naming scheme from the module. The idea behind this was that I wanted to limit the usage of structures in the API so only functions could be used. It was an interesting idea in theory, but this idea turned out to be flawed in a number of ways: 1.) Requiring exports to create sources/outputs/encoders/etc meant that you could not create them by any other means, which meant that things like faruton's .net plugin would become difficult. 2.) Export function declarations could not be checked, therefore if you created a function with the wrong parameters and parameter types, the compiler wouldn't know how to check for that. 3.) Required overly complex load functions in libobs just to handle it. It makes much more sense to just have a load function that you call manually. Complexity is the bane of all good programs. 4.) It required that you have functions of specific names, which looked and felt somewhat unsightly. So, to fix these issues, I replaced it with a more commonly used API scheme, seen commonly in places like kernels and typical C libraries with abstraction. You simply create a structure that contains the callback definitions, and you pass it to a function to register that definition (such as obs_register_source), which you call in the obs_module_load of the module. It will also automatically check the structure size and ensure that it only loads the required values if the structure happened to add new values in an API change. The "main" source file for each module must include obs-module.h, and must use OBS_DECLARE_MODULE() within that source file. Also, started writing some doxygen documentation in to the main library headers. Will add more detailed documentation as I go.
2014-02-12 07:04:50 -08:00
if (type != OBS_SOURCE_TYPE_SCENE)
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
return;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
obs_scene_t scene = obs_scene_fromsource(source);
const char *name = obs_source_getname(source);
QListWidgetItem *sel = ui->scenes->currentItem();
QList<QListWidgetItem*> items =
ui->scenes->findItems(QT_UTF8(name), Qt::MatchExactly);
if (items.contains(sel)) {
ui->scenes->setCurrentItem(sel);
UpdateSources(scene);
}
2013-12-28 21:29:13 -08:00
}
}
/* OBS Callbacks */
void OBSBasic::SceneItemAdded(void *data, calldata_t params)
{
OBSBasic *window = static_cast<OBSBasic*>(data);
obs_scene_t scene = (obs_scene_t)calldata_ptr(params, "scene");
obs_sceneitem_t item = (obs_sceneitem_t)calldata_ptr(params, "item");
2013-12-28 21:29:13 -08:00
QMetaObject::invokeMethod(window, "AddSceneItem",
Q_ARG(OBSSceneItem, OBSSceneItem(item)));
2013-12-28 21:29:13 -08:00
}
void OBSBasic::SceneItemRemoved(void *data, calldata_t params)
{
OBSBasic *window = static_cast<OBSBasic*>(data);
obs_scene_t scene = (obs_scene_t)calldata_ptr(params, "scene");
obs_sceneitem_t item = (obs_sceneitem_t)calldata_ptr(params, "item");
QMetaObject::invokeMethod(window, "RemoveSceneItem",
Q_ARG(OBSSceneItem, OBSSceneItem(item)));
}
void OBSBasic::SourceAdded(void *data, calldata_t params)
{
obs_source_t source = (obs_source_t)calldata_ptr(params, "source");
obs_source_type type;
obs_source_gettype(source, &type, NULL);
Revamp API and start using doxygen The API used to be designed in such a way to where it would expect exports for each individual source/output/encoder/etc. You would export functions for each and it would automatically load those functions based on a specific naming scheme from the module. The idea behind this was that I wanted to limit the usage of structures in the API so only functions could be used. It was an interesting idea in theory, but this idea turned out to be flawed in a number of ways: 1.) Requiring exports to create sources/outputs/encoders/etc meant that you could not create them by any other means, which meant that things like faruton's .net plugin would become difficult. 2.) Export function declarations could not be checked, therefore if you created a function with the wrong parameters and parameter types, the compiler wouldn't know how to check for that. 3.) Required overly complex load functions in libobs just to handle it. It makes much more sense to just have a load function that you call manually. Complexity is the bane of all good programs. 4.) It required that you have functions of specific names, which looked and felt somewhat unsightly. So, to fix these issues, I replaced it with a more commonly used API scheme, seen commonly in places like kernels and typical C libraries with abstraction. You simply create a structure that contains the callback definitions, and you pass it to a function to register that definition (such as obs_register_source), which you call in the obs_module_load of the module. It will also automatically check the structure size and ensure that it only loads the required values if the structure happened to add new values in an API change. The "main" source file for each module must include obs-module.h, and must use OBS_DECLARE_MODULE() within that source file. Also, started writing some doxygen documentation in to the main library headers. Will add more detailed documentation as I go.
2014-02-12 07:04:50 -08:00
if (type == OBS_SOURCE_TYPE_SCENE)
QMetaObject::invokeMethod(static_cast<OBSBasic*>(data),
"AddScene",
Q_ARG(OBSSource, OBSSource(source)));
}
void OBSBasic::SourceRemoved(void *data, calldata_t params)
{
obs_source_t source = (obs_source_t)calldata_ptr(params, "source");
2013-12-28 21:29:13 -08:00
obs_source_type type;
obs_source_gettype(source, &type, NULL);
Revamp API and start using doxygen The API used to be designed in such a way to where it would expect exports for each individual source/output/encoder/etc. You would export functions for each and it would automatically load those functions based on a specific naming scheme from the module. The idea behind this was that I wanted to limit the usage of structures in the API so only functions could be used. It was an interesting idea in theory, but this idea turned out to be flawed in a number of ways: 1.) Requiring exports to create sources/outputs/encoders/etc meant that you could not create them by any other means, which meant that things like faruton's .net plugin would become difficult. 2.) Export function declarations could not be checked, therefore if you created a function with the wrong parameters and parameter types, the compiler wouldn't know how to check for that. 3.) Required overly complex load functions in libobs just to handle it. It makes much more sense to just have a load function that you call manually. Complexity is the bane of all good programs. 4.) It required that you have functions of specific names, which looked and felt somewhat unsightly. So, to fix these issues, I replaced it with a more commonly used API scheme, seen commonly in places like kernels and typical C libraries with abstraction. You simply create a structure that contains the callback definitions, and you pass it to a function to register that definition (such as obs_register_source), which you call in the obs_module_load of the module. It will also automatically check the structure size and ensure that it only loads the required values if the structure happened to add new values in an API change. The "main" source file for each module must include obs-module.h, and must use OBS_DECLARE_MODULE() within that source file. Also, started writing some doxygen documentation in to the main library headers. Will add more detailed documentation as I go.
2014-02-12 07:04:50 -08:00
if (type == OBS_SOURCE_TYPE_SCENE)
QMetaObject::invokeMethod(static_cast<OBSBasic*>(data),
"RemoveScene",
Q_ARG(OBSSource, OBSSource(source)));
}
void OBSBasic::ChannelChanged(void *data, calldata_t params)
{
obs_source_t source = (obs_source_t)calldata_ptr(params, "source");
uint32_t channel = calldata_uint32(params, "channel");
if (channel == 0)
QMetaObject::invokeMethod(static_cast<OBSBasic*>(data),
"UpdateSceneSelection",
Q_ARG(OBSSource, OBSSource(source)));
}
void OBSBasic::RenderMain(void *data, uint32_t cx, uint32_t cy)
{
obs_render_main_view();
}
/* Main class functions */
bool OBSBasic::InitGraphics()
{
struct obs_video_info ovi;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
App()->GetConfigFPS(ovi.fps_num, ovi.fps_den);
ovi.graphics_module = App()->GetRenderModule();
ovi.base_width = (uint32_t)config_get_uint(GetGlobalConfig(),
"Video", "BaseCX");
ovi.base_height = (uint32_t)config_get_uint(GetGlobalConfig(),
"Video", "BaseCY");
ovi.output_width = (uint32_t)config_get_uint(GetGlobalConfig(),
"Video", "OutputCX");
ovi.output_height = (uint32_t)config_get_uint(GetGlobalConfig(),
"Video", "OutputCY");
ovi.output_format = VIDEO_FORMAT_I420;
ovi.adapter = 0;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QTToGSWindow(ui->preview, ovi.window);
//required to make opengl display stuff on osx(?)
2013-12-31 03:02:07 -08:00
ResizePreview(ovi.base_width, ovi.base_height);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QSize size = ui->preview->size();
ovi.window_width = size.width();
ovi.window_height = size.height();
2013-12-31 03:02:07 -08:00
return obs_reset_video(&ovi);
}
2013-12-31 03:02:07 -08:00
bool OBSBasic::InitAudio()
{
/* TODO: load audio settings from config */
struct audio_output_info ai;
ai.name = "test";
ai.samples_per_sec = 44100;
ai.format = AUDIO_FORMAT_FLOAT_PLANAR;
ai.speakers = SPEAKERS_STEREO;
ai.buffer_ms = 700;
return obs_reset_audio(&ai);
}
2013-12-31 03:02:07 -08:00
void OBSBasic::ResizePreview(uint32_t cx, uint32_t cy)
{
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
double targetAspect, baseAspect;
QSize targetSize;
int x, y;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
/* resize preview panel to fix to the top section of the window */
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
targetSize = ui->previewContainer->size();
targetAspect = double(targetSize.width()) / double(targetSize.height());
baseAspect = double(cx) / double(cy);
if (targetAspect > baseAspect) {
cx = targetSize.height() * baseAspect;
cy = targetSize.height();
} else {
cx = targetSize.width();
cy = targetSize.width() / baseAspect;
}
x = targetSize.width() /2 - cx/2;
y = targetSize.height()/2 - cy/2;
ui->preview->setGeometry(x, y, cx, cy);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
if (isVisible())
obs_resize(cx, cy);
2013-12-31 03:02:07 -08:00
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::closeEvent(QCloseEvent *event)
2013-12-31 03:02:07 -08:00
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::changeEvent(QEvent *event)
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::resizeEvent(QResizeEvent *event)
{
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
struct obs_video_info ovi;
if (obs_get_video_info(&ovi))
ResizePreview(ovi.base_width, ovi.base_height);
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_action_New_triggered()
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_action_Open_triggered()
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_action_Save_triggered()
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_scenes_itemChanged(QListWidgetItem *item)
{
obs_source_t source = NULL;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
if (item) {
obs_scene_t scene;
scene = item->data(Qt::UserRole).value<OBSScene>();
source = obs_scene_getsource(scene);
UpdateSources(scene);
}
/* TODO: allow transitions */
obs_set_output_source(0, source);
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_scenes_customContextMenuRequested(const QPoint &pos)
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionAddScene_triggered()
{
string name;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
bool accepted = NameDialog::AskForName(this,
QTStr("MainWindow.AddSceneDlg.Title"),
QTStr("MainWindow.AddSceneDlg.Text"),
name);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
if (accepted) {
obs_source_t source = obs_get_source_by_name(name.c_str());
if (source) {
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QMessageBox::information(this,
QTStr("MainWindow.NameExists.Title"),
QTStr("MainWindow.NameExists.Text"));
obs_source_release(source);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
on_actionAddScene_triggered();
return;
}
obs_scene_t scene = obs_scene_create(name.c_str());
source = obs_scene_getsource(scene);
obs_add_source(source);
obs_scene_release(scene);
obs_set_output_source(0, source);
}
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionRemoveScene_triggered()
{
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QListWidgetItem *item = ui->scenes->currentItem();
if (!item)
2013-12-29 19:01:19 -08:00
return;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QVariant userData = item->data(Qt::UserRole);
obs_scene_t scene = userData.value<OBSScene>();
2013-12-29 19:01:19 -08:00
obs_source_t source = obs_scene_getsource(scene);
obs_source_remove(source);
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionSceneProperties_triggered()
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionSceneUp_triggered()
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionSceneDown_triggered()
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_sources_itemChanged(QListWidgetItem *item)
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_sources_customContextMenuRequested(const QPoint &pos)
{
}
void OBSBasic::AddSource(obs_scene_t scene, const char *id)
{
string name;
bool success = false;
while (!success) {
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
bool accepted = NameDialog::AskForName(this,
Str("MainWindow.AddSourceDlg.Title"),
Str("MainWindow.AddSourceDlg.Text"),
name);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
if (!accepted)
break;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
obs_source_t source = obs_get_source_by_name(name.c_str());
if (!source) {
success = true;
} else {
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QMessageBox::information(this,
QTStr("MainWindow.NameExists.Title"),
QTStr("MainWindow.NameExists.Text"));
obs_source_release(source);
}
}
if (success) {
Revamp API and start using doxygen The API used to be designed in such a way to where it would expect exports for each individual source/output/encoder/etc. You would export functions for each and it would automatically load those functions based on a specific naming scheme from the module. The idea behind this was that I wanted to limit the usage of structures in the API so only functions could be used. It was an interesting idea in theory, but this idea turned out to be flawed in a number of ways: 1.) Requiring exports to create sources/outputs/encoders/etc meant that you could not create them by any other means, which meant that things like faruton's .net plugin would become difficult. 2.) Export function declarations could not be checked, therefore if you created a function with the wrong parameters and parameter types, the compiler wouldn't know how to check for that. 3.) Required overly complex load functions in libobs just to handle it. It makes much more sense to just have a load function that you call manually. Complexity is the bane of all good programs. 4.) It required that you have functions of specific names, which looked and felt somewhat unsightly. So, to fix these issues, I replaced it with a more commonly used API scheme, seen commonly in places like kernels and typical C libraries with abstraction. You simply create a structure that contains the callback definitions, and you pass it to a function to register that definition (such as obs_register_source), which you call in the obs_module_load of the module. It will also automatically check the structure size and ensure that it only loads the required values if the structure happened to add new values in an API change. The "main" source file for each module must include obs-module.h, and must use OBS_DECLARE_MODULE() within that source file. Also, started writing some doxygen documentation in to the main library headers. Will add more detailed documentation as I go.
2014-02-12 07:04:50 -08:00
obs_source_t source = obs_source_create(OBS_SOURCE_TYPE_INPUT,
id, name.c_str(), NULL);
sourceSceneRefs[source] = 0;
obs_add_source(source);
obs_sceneitem_t item = obs_scene_add(scene, source);
obs_source_release(source);
}
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::AddSourcePopupMenu(const QPoint &pos)
{
OBSScene scene = GetCurrentScene();
const char *type;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
bool foundValues = false;
size_t idx = 0;
if (!scene)
return;
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QMenu popup;
while (obs_enum_input_types(idx++, &type)) {
Revamp API and start using doxygen The API used to be designed in such a way to where it would expect exports for each individual source/output/encoder/etc. You would export functions for each and it would automatically load those functions based on a specific naming scheme from the module. The idea behind this was that I wanted to limit the usage of structures in the API so only functions could be used. It was an interesting idea in theory, but this idea turned out to be flawed in a number of ways: 1.) Requiring exports to create sources/outputs/encoders/etc meant that you could not create them by any other means, which meant that things like faruton's .net plugin would become difficult. 2.) Export function declarations could not be checked, therefore if you created a function with the wrong parameters and parameter types, the compiler wouldn't know how to check for that. 3.) Required overly complex load functions in libobs just to handle it. It makes much more sense to just have a load function that you call manually. Complexity is the bane of all good programs. 4.) It required that you have functions of specific names, which looked and felt somewhat unsightly. So, to fix these issues, I replaced it with a more commonly used API scheme, seen commonly in places like kernels and typical C libraries with abstraction. You simply create a structure that contains the callback definitions, and you pass it to a function to register that definition (such as obs_register_source), which you call in the obs_module_load of the module. It will also automatically check the structure size and ensure that it only loads the required values if the structure happened to add new values in an API change. The "main" source file for each module must include obs-module.h, and must use OBS_DECLARE_MODULE() within that source file. Also, started writing some doxygen documentation in to the main library headers. Will add more detailed documentation as I go.
2014-02-12 07:04:50 -08:00
const char *name = obs_source_getdisplayname(
OBS_SOURCE_TYPE_INPUT,
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
type, App()->GetLocale());
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
QAction *popupItem = new QAction(QT_UTF8(name), this);
popupItem->setData(QT_UTF8(type));
popup.addAction(popupItem);
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
foundValues = true;
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
if (foundValues) {
QAction *ret = popup.exec(pos);
if (ret)
AddSource(scene, ret->data().toString().toUtf8());
}
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionAddSource_triggered()
{
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
AddSourcePopupMenu(QCursor::pos());
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionRemoveSource_triggered()
{
OBSSceneItem item = GetCurrentSceneItem();
if (item)
obs_sceneitem_remove(item);
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionSourceProperties_triggered()
{
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionSourceUp_triggered()
{
}
2013-12-10 10:22:33 -08:00
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_actionSourceDown_triggered()
{
}
void OBSBasic::on_recordButton_clicked()
{
if (outputTest) {
obs_output_destroy(outputTest);
outputTest = NULL;
ui->recordButton->setText("Start Recording");
} else {
QString path = QFileDialog::getSaveFileName(this,
"Please enter a file name", QString(),
"Video Files (*.avi)");
if (path.isNull() || path.isEmpty())
return;
obs_data_t data = obs_data_create();
obs_data_setstring(data, "filename", QT_TO_UTF8(path));
outputTest = obs_output_create("ffmpeg_output", "test", data);
obs_data_release(data);
if (!obs_output_start(outputTest)) {
obs_output_destroy(outputTest);
outputTest = NULL;
return;
}
ui->recordButton->setText("Stop Recording");
}
}
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
void OBSBasic::on_settingsButton_clicked()
2013-12-10 10:22:33 -08:00
{
OBSBasicSettings settings(this);
settings.exec();
2013-12-10 10:22:33 -08:00
}