[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-commits
Subject:    Re: [kate] part/utils: guard some options against setting it twice
From:       Kevin Funk <krf () gmx ! de>
Date:       2013-06-28 18:09:15
Message-ID: 2487864.d1jJv0HuTB () kerberos
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday, 28. June 2013 19:52:17 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> On Friday, 28. June 2013 19:42:35 Kevin Funk wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27. June 2013 10:30:13 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> > > Git commit 256f7654bd7a1dd20c60558307511b4be1c090bd by Dominik Haumann.
> > > Committed on 27/06/2013 at 10:30.
> > > Pushed by dhaumann into branch 'master'.
> > > 
> > > guard some options against setting it twice
> > > 
> > > Setting an option that already is the correct value
> > > should not emit configChanged(). So all setters should
> > > 
> > > have the form:
> > >   if (!m_optionSet || m_option != option) {
> > >   
> > >     configStart();
> > >     m_optionSet = true;
> > >     m_option = option;
> > >     configEnd();
> > >   
> > >   }
> > > 
> > > This should be done for all setters in KateConfig. Then,
> > > potentially lots of unnecessary config-changed signals could be
> > > suppressed. Any volunteers?
> > > 
> > > (snip)
> > 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > I've wondered about kateconfig.cpp the first time I saw it...
> > 
> > Why don't you simply use KConfigXT here? Most, if not all of the code
> > inside kateconfig.cpp could be auto-generated. Am I missing something?
> > 
> > Is KConfigXT *not* used because of the distinction between global and non-
> > global properties?
> > 
> > [1] https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Using_KConfig_XT
> 
> answer 1: because these config classes existed before KConfigXT was born.

I expected that :)

> answer 2: because someone needs to port it, and the current code works.

Makes sense, too.

> answer 3: does it really support everything we need, or would we still need
>           to work around some shortcomings?

That's what I actually wanted to know, because I don't really know what the 
requirements are. I was wondering if you guys evaluated KConfigXT at some 
point.

Plus I was just asking *now* because you asked someone to touch all of 
kateconfig.cpp, so it's probably time to think about a more maintainable 
solution instead of writing even more boilerplate code.

> Greetings :-)
> Dominik

Greets

-- 
Kevin Funk
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]