2013-11-07 15:45:03 -08:00
|
|
|
/******************************************************************************
|
2014-02-13 07:58:31 -08:00
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2013-2014 by Hugh Bailey <obs.jim@gmail.com>
|
2013-11-07 15:45:03 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
2013-12-02 21:24:38 -08:00
|
|
|
the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
|
2013-11-07 15:45:03 -08:00
|
|
|
(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/>.
|
|
|
|
******************************************************************************/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#pragma once
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-22 22:40:07 -08:00
|
|
|
#include <obs.hpp>
|
2014-01-06 19:20:18 -08:00
|
|
|
#include <unordered_map>
|
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archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do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 <memory>
|
2014-01-25 08:08:56 -08:00
|
|
|
#include "window-main.hpp"
|
2014-01-06 19:20:18 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-03-06 20:08:12 -08:00
|
|
|
#include <util/util.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
|
|
|
class QListWidgetItem;
|
|
|
|
|
2014-01-23 22:58:48 -08:00
|
|
|
#include "ui_OBSBasic.h"
|
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
|
|
|
|
2014-01-25 08:08:56 -08:00
|
|
|
class OBSBasic : public OBSMainWindow {
|
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
|
|
|
Q_OBJECT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
2014-01-06 19:20:18 -08:00
|
|
|
std::unordered_map<obs_source_t, int> sourceSceneRefs;
|
2014-02-10 09:22:35 -08:00
|
|
|
obs_output_t outputTest;
|
2014-02-20 21:04:14 -08:00
|
|
|
bool sceneChanging;
|
2014-01-06 19:20:18 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-03-06 20:08:12 -08:00
|
|
|
ConfigFile basicConfig;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void GetFPSCommon(uint32_t &num, uint32_t &den) const;
|
|
|
|
void GetFPSInteger(uint32_t &num, uint32_t &den) const;
|
|
|
|
void GetFPSFraction(uint32_t &num, uint32_t &den) const;
|
|
|
|
void GetFPSNanoseconds(uint32_t &num, uint32_t &den) const;
|
|
|
|
void GetConfigFPS(uint32_t &num, uint32_t &den) const;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool InitBasicConfigDefaults();
|
|
|
|
bool InitBasicConfig();
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-02 16:03:55 -08:00
|
|
|
OBSScene GetCurrentScene();
|
2014-02-02 13:26:23 -08:00
|
|
|
OBSSceneItem GetCurrentSceneItem();
|
2014-01-04 12:53:36 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-02-02 16:03:55 -08:00
|
|
|
void UpdateSources(OBSScene scene);
|
2014-03-01 04:54:55 -08:00
|
|
|
void InsertSceneItem(obs_sceneitem_t item);
|
2014-02-02 16:03:55 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private slots:
|
|
|
|
void AddSceneItem(OBSSceneItem item);
|
|
|
|
void RemoveSceneItem(OBSSceneItem item);
|
|
|
|
void AddScene(OBSSource source);
|
|
|
|
void RemoveScene(OBSSource source);
|
|
|
|
void UpdateSceneSelection(OBSSource source);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
2014-01-04 12:53:36 -08:00
|
|
|
/* OBS Callbacks */
|
|
|
|
static void SceneItemAdded(void *data, calldata_t params);
|
|
|
|
static void SceneItemRemoved(void *data, calldata_t params);
|
2013-12-28 04:33:16 -08:00
|
|
|
static void SourceAdded(void *data, calldata_t params);
|
2014-02-02 13:26:23 -08:00
|
|
|
static void SourceRemoved(void *data, calldata_t params);
|
2014-01-04 12:53:36 -08:00
|
|
|
static void ChannelChanged(void *data, calldata_t params);
|
2014-02-13 07:58:31 -08:00
|
|
|
static void RenderMain(void *data, uint32_t cx, uint32_t cy);
|
2013-12-28 04:33:16 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-31 03:02:07 -08:00
|
|
|
void ResizePreview(uint32_t cx, uint32_t cy);
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-30 05:56:39 -08:00
|
|
|
void AddSource(obs_scene_t scene, const char *id);
|
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 AddSourcePopupMenu(const QPoint &pos);
|
2013-12-30 05:56:39 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-02-22 19:14:19 -08:00
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
bool ResetVideo();
|
|
|
|
bool ResetAudio();
|
2013-12-22 22:40:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-20 10:56:01 -08:00
|
|
|
void NewProject();
|
|
|
|
void SaveProject();
|
|
|
|
void LoadProject();
|
|
|
|
|
2013-11-07 15:45:03 -08:00
|
|
|
protected:
|
2014-01-25 08:08:56 -08:00
|
|
|
virtual void closeEvent(QCloseEvent *event) override;
|
|
|
|
virtual void changeEvent(QEvent *event) override;
|
|
|
|
virtual void resizeEvent(QResizeEvent *event) override;
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private slots:
|
|
|
|
void on_action_New_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_action_Open_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_action_Save_triggered();
|
2014-02-20 21:04:14 -08:00
|
|
|
void on_scenes_currentItemChanged(QListWidgetItem *current,
|
|
|
|
QListWidgetItem *prev);
|
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 on_scenes_customContextMenuRequested(const QPoint &pos);
|
|
|
|
void on_actionAddScene_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionRemoveScene_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionSceneProperties_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionSceneUp_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionSceneDown_triggered();
|
2014-02-20 21:04:14 -08:00
|
|
|
void on_sources_currentItemChanged(QListWidgetItem *current,
|
|
|
|
QListWidgetItem *prev);
|
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 on_sources_customContextMenuRequested(const QPoint &pos);
|
|
|
|
void on_actionAddSource_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionRemoveSource_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionSourceProperties_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionSourceUp_triggered();
|
|
|
|
void on_actionSourceDown_triggered();
|
2014-02-10 09:22:35 -08:00
|
|
|
void on_recordButton_clicked();
|
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 on_settingsButton_clicked();
|
2013-11-07 15:45:03 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
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
|
|
|
explicit OBSBasic(QWidget *parent = 0);
|
2014-02-02 13:26:23 -08:00
|
|
|
virtual ~OBSBasic();
|
2013-11-22 19:43:48 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2014-01-25 08:08:56 -08:00
|
|
|
virtual void OBSInit() override;
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-06 20:08:12 -08:00
|
|
|
virtual config_t Config() const override;
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<Ui::OBSBasic> ui;
|
2013-11-07 15:45:03 -08:00
|
|
|
};
|